Ong Cheng Cheng v Attorney-General

Ms Ong Cheng Cheng said her brother, Mr Ong Cheng Poh, assaulted her at the family home on 21 January 2023 while their parents waited to be taken to a Chinese New Year dinner. According to her, he pushed her to the floor and struck her face after assuming she was bullying their father. He apologised by WhatsApp that night, and she was hospitalised. She made a police report, a Magistrate's Complaint, and on 31 October 2023 obtained a personal protection order with his consent. On 12 April 2024 she began a private prosecution for voluntarily causing hurt and sought a custodial sentence.

On 29 July 2024 the Attorney-General's Chambers took over and discontinued the private prosecution under s 13 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, and her brother received a discharge amounting to acquittal; the police later gave him a stern warning. She then wrote to her Member of Parliament, the Minister for Law's office and the Prime Minister's Office. On 4 March 2026 she filed Originating Application No 248 of 2026 seeking an extension of time and permission to apply for quashing and mandatory orders against the decision. Kwek Mean Luck J heard it.

1. Whether the court could and should extend the three-month time limit for seeking permission for judicial review.
2. Whether the discontinuance breached the applicant's right to equal protection under Article 12(1) of the Constitution.
3. Whether there was a reasonable suspicion that the Public Prosecutor exercised the power to discontinue arbitrarily.

The Rules of Court 2021 no longer contain the express power to extend time found in the 2014 rules, but the judge agreed the court keeps a discretion under O 3 r 2(1). Rather than the factors drawn from Teng Fuh Holdings, he applied Per Ah Seng Robin v Housing and Development Board [2016] 1 SLR 1020: whether the delay is satisfactorily explained is fact-sensitive, and genuine attempts to resolve matters without litigation earn some latitude. Her approaches to her MP, the Minister and the Prime Minister's Office up to 5 June 2025 were such attempts. The nine months after that were not explained: her duties as her mother's deputy, the hospital stays and home renovations did not stop her instructing solicitors, and ignorance of the time limit is no excuse, particularly as she had lawyers from July 2024.

On the merits, only the need for a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion was disputed. Under the two-step test in Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Attorney-General [2021] 1 SLR 809, she had to show someone virtually identically situated was treated differently. Her only comparator was a public prosecution involving a former couple and a facial fracture, whereas this was a spur-of-the-moment family incident, without fracture, where the brother had shown remorse.

On arbitrariness, the court relied on Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General [2012] 2 SLR 49: not every offender must be prosecuted, and the Prosecution weighs many factors. CCTV footage and a readiness to plead guilty did not raise a suspicion of arbitrary decision-making, and since the Prosecution need not give reasons, it need not disclose the brother's solicitors' letter either.

The court dismissed the application for an extension of time, and held that it would in any case have dismissed the application for permission on its merits. Costs of $7,000 plus disbursements of $573.80 were awarded to the Attorney-General. The applicant has appealed.