Karuppah Alagu and Others v The Minister of Home Affairs and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: G P Selvam JC
• Judgment Date: 23 March 1992
• Neutral Citation: [1992] SGHC 72
• Published date: 21 March 2013
• Year: 1992
• Citation: [1992] SGHC 72
• Plaintiff Counsel: S K Kumar
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Judgment:

GROUNDS OF DECISION

Application for Habeas Corpus

By an ex parte originating motion the applicants applied for an order that a writ of habeas corpus ad subiciendum directed to The Minister of Home Affairs, The Attorney-General and the Controller of Immigration to have the applicants produced before this Court to show cause as to why the applicants should not be set at liberty.

The applicants (five in all) claimed that they were Indian nationals who gained entry into Singapore legally on 2 June 1990 and were issued with two year work permits valid from 2 June 1990 to 17 May 1992 to work for a local firm, Kamugawa Building Construction. They were arrested by immigration officers from the Field Division, Immigration Department at Katong on 2 January 1992 whilst they were at work for someone other than Kamugawa Building Construction. Since 11 January 1992 they were held in detention at the Moon Crescent Centre, pursuant to Orders of Removal and Detention under ss 33(1) and 34(1) of the Immigration Act (Cap 133).

The applicants claimed that their detention was illegal from the outset on the grounds that :

(i) they had gained entry into Singapore lawfully; (ii) they had been lawfully issued with work permits to work for a local company known as Kamugawa Building Construction; (iii) the work permits would be valid till 17 May 1992; (iv) at no time prior to being arrested by Immigration Officers on 3 January 1992 they were aware or had the slightest reason to believe that they had contravened s 15 (1) of the Immigration Act or any other Act; and (v) at no time after their arrest they were given an opportunity to be heard before they were issued with the Order of Removal and subsequently the Order of Detention.

Solicitors instructed by them made an appeal to the Minister of Home Affairs under s 33 (2) of the Immigration Act against the Controller of Immigration's Order of Removal. The appeal was rejected by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 15 February 1992.

This application was made pursuant to O 54 of the Rules of Supreme Court 1970. An application under the circumstances outlined above should more properly be made under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) and not the Rules of the Supreme Court. I treated it as a technical irregularity and heard the application.

Applicable Principles

This application is analogous to ex parte applications for judicial review under the English Rules of the Supreme Court 1965. Lord Diplock in R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex p National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd < 1982 > AC 617 commented on the purpose of obtaining leave to apply for judicial review. He said that the requirement for leave was designed to "prevent the time of the court being wasted by busybodies with misguided or trivial complaints of administrative error, and to remove the uncertainty in which public officers and authorities might be left as to whether they could safely proceed with administrative action while proceedings for judicial review of it were actually pending even though misconceived." That principle equally applies to habeas corpus appliations under O 54 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1970.

In a similar ex parte application (OM 112 of 1991) for habeas corpus against detention under s 30 of the Crimial Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Cap 67) I stated that an "applicant applying for leave to apply for a Writ of Habeas Corpus must make an affidavit setting out the facts and circumstances of the case and give come cogent grounds as to why the...