Leong Kum Fatt v Attorney General

• Judgment Date: 25 April 1985
• Date: 25 April 1985
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 25 of 1984
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Leong Kum Fatt

Plaintiff

and

Attorney-General

Defendant

[1985] SGCA 6

Wee Chong Jin CJ

,

Lai Kew Chai J

and

L P Thean J

Civil Appeal No 25 of 1984

Court of Appeal

Administrative Law–Disciplinary board–Probationary police inspector found guilty of assault by disciplinary board appointed by Commissioner of Police–Probationary police inspector subsequently dismissed–Whether board proceedings in breach of Police Regulations 1959 (GN No S 238/1959) and rules of natural justice–Whether board had given accused reasonable opportunity to be heard–Article 110 (3) Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1980 Reprint)–Sections 27 (1) (c) and 28 (1) Police Force Act (Cap 78, 1970 Rev Ed)–Regulations 7, 8 and 9 Police Regulations 1959 (GN No S 238/1959)–Administrative Law–Natural justice–Probationary police inspector found guilty of assault by disciplinary board appointed by Commissioner of Police–Probationary police inspector subsequently dismissed–Whether board proceedings in breach of Police Regulations 1959 (GN No S 238/1959) and rules of natural justice–Whether board had given accused reasonable opportunity to be heard–Whether there was sufficiency of evidence–Article 110 (3) Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1980 Reprint)–Sections 27 (1) (c) and 28 (1) Police Force Act (Cap 78, 1970 Rev Ed)–Regulations 7, 8 and 9 Police Regulations 1959 (GN No S 238/1959)

The appellant, a police officer, was dismissed by the Commissioner of Police after he was found guilty by the board (“the Board”) conducting the disciplinary enquiry of having assaulted a suspect on two occasions. The appellant appealed to the Public Service Commission which confirmed the decision of the Commissioner of Police. The appellant then commenced an action on the basis that the proceedings of the Board were conducted in breach of the Police Regulations and/or in breach of the rules of natural justice and he sought a declaration that his dismissal from the Police Force was null and void and that he had continued to be and was still a police officer and entitled to be remunerated as such. Alternatively, he sought damages for wrongful dismissal. The High Court dismissed the action on the basis that the Board had acted in compliance with the requirements of the Police Regulations and the rules of natural justice had not been breached. The appellant appealed.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) A tribunal's findings of facts were not open to review by the court in the exercise of its supervisory powers except on the principles laid down in Edwards v Bairstow [1956] AC 14. In the instant case, there was sufficient evidence for the Board to come to its finding that the appellant was guilty of both the charges: at [16].

(2) The procedure of the Board should strictly follow the Police Regulations 1959 (GN No S 238/1959). However, there were two types of regulations. First, the regulations designed to give effect to Art 110 (3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1980 Reprint), of which any contravention of such regulations would give an aggrieved person a legal right of redress in a court of law and the vitiation of the findings. Second, the remainder of the regulations which were merely directory and any contraventions of these may be excused so long as the Board had, taking the entire decision-making process as a whole, acted fairly to the person whose conduct was being enquired into: at [24].

(3) In the instant case, the Board gave the appellant the opportunity to be heard and it acted fairly towards him in carrying out its decision-making process. The appeal was accordingly dismissed: at [28].

Edwards v Bairstow [1956] AC 14 (folld)

O'Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237 (refd)

Wong Keng Sam v Pritam Singh Brar [1968-1970] SLR (R) 221; [1965-1968] SLR 316 (folld)

Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1980 Reprint)Art 110 (3) (consd)

Police Force Act (Cap 78, 1970 Rev Ed)ss 27 (1) (c), 28 (1) (consd);Pt III

Police Regulations1959 (GN No S 238/1959)regs 7, 8, 9 (consd)

Rules of the Supreme Court 1970, TheO 53

J B Jeyaretnam (J B Jeyaretnam & Co) for the appellant

Jeffrey Chan (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the respondent.

Lai Kew Chai J

(delivering the judgment of the court):

1 The appellant, a former probationary inspector of the Singapore Police Force, was dismissed by the Commissioner of Police under s 28 (1) of the Police Force Act (Cap 78) (“the Act”) after he was found guilty by a board of having assaulted one Tan Lian Ann, a 28-year-old shop assistant, on two occasions, once at 10.00am and then again at 4.00pm on 23 July 1976 which was conduct prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Police Force and contrary to s 27 (1) (c) of the Act. He appealed to the Public Service Commission which confirmed the decision of the Commissioner of Police.

2 Not satisfied with those decisions, and instead of applying for an order to quash the aforesaid decisions by certiorari under O 53 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1970, which would have required leave of the High Court and which would have entailed the procedural disadvantages fully elaborated by Lord Diplock in O'Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237 the appellant commenced an action in...