Mah Kiat Seng v Attorney-General and others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Valerie Thean J
• Judgment Date: 29 April 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] SGHC 108
• Citation: [2019] SGHC 108
• Defendant Counsel: Gordon Lim Wei Wen and Jessie Lim
• Published date: 09 April 2020
• Hearing Date: 14 January 2019
• Plaintiff Counsel: The plaintiff in person
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 1084 of 2018
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Date: 29 April 2019
• Subject Matter: Extension of time,Civil Procedure,Appeals,Leave,Costs,Mental Disorders and Treatment

Valerie Thean J: Introduction

The Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act (“MHCTA”), replacing Parts II and III of the Mental Disorders and Treatment Act, came into force on 1 March 2010. Its object, Mr Khaw Boon Wan, then Minister for Health explained, is to regulate the involuntary detention of persons in psychiatric institutions for treatment. Two needs in particular were highlighted: the health and safety of persons with mental disorders, and the protection of the community at large (see Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (15 September 2008) vol 85 at col 57).

This case puts these dual needs of society in focus. Section 7 of the MHCTA allows for the apprehension, for the purposes of subsequent referral to treatment, of any person reported to be mentally disordered and believed to be dangerous to himself or other persons. Persons so apprehended are to be referred to a designated medical practitioner at a psychiatric institution, or any medical practitioner who may then, under s 9 of the MHCTA, refer the patient to a designated medical practitioner at a psychiatric institution. Section 25 of the MHCTA provides that where a person has done anything under the MHCTA, neither civil nor criminal liability would arise unless he has acted in bad faith or without reasonable care; nor should such proceedings be brought against him without the leave of court; and finally, leave is to be granted only where the court is satisfied that there is substantial ground for believing that he acted in bad faith or without reasonable care.

Mr Mah Kiat Seng (“Mr Mah”) was arrested by police officers under s 7 of the MHCTA on the night of 7 July 2017. Examined by a medical practitioner and interviewed by a police inspector at the Police Cantonment Complex that night, he was thereafter escorted to the Institute of Mental Health early the next morning, where he was subsequently discharged after another examination.

On 31 August 2018, Mr Mah brought this originating summons to seek leave under s 25(2) of the MHCTA to commence proceedings against two officers involved in his arrest and detention. In addition, he sought an extension of time for leave to appeal and leave to appeal against various costs orders made in the State Courts in an earlier action brought there, without leave, in respect of the same incident. I dismissed Mr Mah’s originating summons on 14 January 2019. He has now appealed and I furnish my reasons accordingly.

Mr Mah’s arrest and detention

On the evening of 7 July 2017, Staff Sergeant Mohamed Rosli Bin Mohamed of the Singapore Police Force (“SSgt Rosli”) and a colleague were dispatched to Suntec City in response to a call made by a female complainant to the police emergency line. The complainant reported that a Chinese male had touched her son’s head and pulled his hair.¹ She called because she was worried about the safety of other children in the vicinity, reporting that the subject was still loitering in the area and observing other children.

After arriving at Suntec City, SSgt Rosli spoke with the complainant, who showed him a photograph of the Chinese male whom she had reported to the police emergency line. Suntec City security personnel then informed SSgt Rosli and his colleague that the said Chinese male was spotted at a taxi stand nearby.²

Having identified Mr Mah as the man in the photograph, SSgt Rosli and his colleague approached him and spoke to him. During their conversation, Mr Mah appeared fidgety and agitated, and was mumbling to himself.³ He also gave what SSgt Rosli concluded were incoherent replies to questions that were asked of him, claiming initially that he was at Suntec City to collect a Straits Times Run “thing” for himself, before subsequently claiming that he was actually there to register for the Straits Times run for a friend.⁴ When SSgt Rosli and his colleague asked Mr Mah about the name of his friend, Mr Mah changed his answer to SSgt Rosli’s initial question, stating that he was at Suntec City to register for the Straits Times Run on behalf of his mother. When SSgt Rosli requested for Mr Mah’s particulars, he took out a plastic bag containing two identity cards, placed one on a stone seat, and told the police officers to take the card themselves.⁵ While SSgt Rosli was searching Mr Mah’s bag, Mr Mah told him that that he was “OCD”, and that he had to spit into plastic bags because he was “OCD”.⁶ SSgt Rosli then witnessed Mr Mah spitting into a plastic bag.

Having assessed Mr Mah as being mentally disordered and a threat to the safety of children in the area due to the complainant’s reports, SSgt Rosli obtained the approval of his Duty Investigation Officer to arrest Mr Mah under s 7 of the MHCTA.⁷ SSgt Syahira and another officer then joined the team in order to make the arrest.

When SSgt Rosli informed Mr Mah that he would be placed under arrest, Mr Mah refused to cooperate.⁸ Eventually, the police officers placed Mr Mah in an arm lock, handcuffed him, and transferred him to the police station.⁹ The arrest took place from approximately 8.52pm to 8.56pm and was recorded on SSgt Syahira’s body-worn camera.¹⁰

After Mr Mah was arrested and brought to the Police Cantonment Complex, he was referred to an in-house doctor from Healthway Medical Group, Dr Raymond Lim (“Dr Lim”).¹¹ Dr Lim began his medical examination at 10.19pm, and concluded it at 10.30pm. Dr Lim’s report listed that Mr Mah did not declare any injuries sustained and that he did not find any obvious injuries on Mr Mah, but that Mr Mah “did not seem to be making sense in his conversation and was constantly talking to himself”.¹² Dr Lim thus recommended for Mr Mah to be referred to IMH.

Later that evening, Mr Mah was interviewed by Inspector Tan Bing Wen Kenneth (“Inspector Tan”) at approximately 11.30pm. During this interview, Inspector Tan explained to Mr Mah that he had been arrested under s 7 of the MHCTA.¹³

Mr Mah was subsequently escorted to IMH at around 3am on 8 July 2017.¹⁴ He was examined by Dr Tracey Wing Li Mun, and discharged later the same day.¹⁵

District Court Suit No 2430 of 2017

On 22 August 2017, Mr Mah filed District Court Suit No 2430 of 2017 (“DC 2430/2017”) against the Singapore Police Force, claiming damages for loss of liberty, physical and mental hurt, and damage done to his personal property.

Mr Mah had omitted to seek leave prior to commencing his action as required under s 25(2) of the MHCTA. The Attorney-General (“the AG”) followed on, therefore, with Summons No 3131 of 2017 (“Summons 3131/2017”), to strike out Mr Mah’s action. On 20 November 2017, a Deputy Registrar (“the DR”) struck out Mr Mah’s statement of claim, on the basis that it was frivolous or vexatious, an abuse of the process of the court, and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.¹⁶ The court also granted costs of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements, to be paid to the AG within 7 days.

Mr Mah filed a notice of appeal against the decision of the DR on 23 November 2017, in Registrar’s Appeal No 95 of 2017 (“Registrar’s Appeal 95/2017”), but neglected to serve the notice of appeal on the AG. On 20 March 2018, a District Judge (“the first DJ”) held that, because the notice of appeal had not been validly served within the time prescribed under the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) (“ROC”), Mr Mah had to demonstrate that an extension of time to serve the notice of appeal should be granted. ¹⁷ She declined to grant such an extension, citing as a key reason the fact that Mr Mah’s appeal was doomed to fail, due to Mr Mah not having obtained leave under s 25(2) of the MHCTA to institute civil proceedings.¹⁸ A costs order of $2,500, inclusive of disbursements, was ordered against Mr Mah.

Subsequently, on 30 July 2018, Mr Mah filed Summons No 2755 of 2018 (“Summons 2755/2018”) seeking an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal to a Judge of the High Court in Chambers against the total costs orders of $7,500. On 24 August 2018, another District Judge (“the second DJ”) dismissed Mr Mah’s application, holding that the length of delay in making the application was significant, and that the chance of success of obtaining leave to appeal was extremely low.¹⁹ He ordered costs against Mr Mah, fixed at $1,000, inclusive of disbursements.

Originating Summons No 1084 of 2018

On 31 August 2018, Mr Mah filed a High Court Originating Summons No 1084 of 2018 (“the OS”), which came before me on 14 January 2019.

Mr Mah sought the following relief in the OS: 1. Pursuant to s 21(1)(b) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act read with O 55C r 1 and 2(1) of the ROC, and O 3 r 4 of the ROC; the Plaintiff be granted an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal to a Judge of the High Court in Chambers against the costs orders of $7,500: $5,000 in the Deputy Registrar hearing and $2,500 in the Registrar’s Appeal hearing. 2. Pursuant to s 21(1)(b) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act read with O 55C r 1 and 2(1) of the ROC, the Plaintiff be granted leave to appeal to a Judge of the High Court in Chambers against the costs orders of $7,500. 3. Pursuant to s 21(1)(b) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act read with O 55C r 1 and 2(1) of the ROC, the Plaintiff be granted leave to appeal to a Judge of the High Court in Chambers against the decision of [the second DJ] made on the 24th day of August 2018 in Summons No.: SUM 2755/2018 of DC Suit No.: 2430/2017. 4. Pursuant to s 25(2) of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act (Cap 178A, 2012 Rev Ed.), the Plaintiff be granted leave to bring civil proceedings. 5. The costs of and occasioned by this application be paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiff; and 6. Such further or other relief as this Honourable Court deems fit.

Issues

Distilling the above, Mr Mah essentially requested the following four remedies: An extension of time to file the application for leave to...