Re Wong Sin Yee

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeTan Lee Meng J
Judgment Date19 September 2007
Neutral Citation[2007] SGHC 147
Docket NumberOriginating Summons No 537 of 2007
Date19 September 2007
Year2007
Published date20 September 2007
Plaintiff CounselJimmy Yim, SC (instructed) / Darrell Low and Dennis Chua (Dennis Chua & Co)
Citation[2007] SGHC 147
Defendant CounselMavis Chionh and Leong Kwang Ian (Attorney-General's Chambers)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Subject MatterJudicial review of procedure,Whether detention unlawful because Minister's exercise of discretion challengeable on grounds of illegality, procedural impropriety or irrationality,Administrative Law,Detention order under s 30 of Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Cap 67, 2000 Rev Ed),Administrative detention

19 September 2007

Judgment reserved.

Tan Lee Meng J:

1 This case involves an application by Mr Wong Sin Yee (“the applicant”) under Order 54 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) for a review of his detention under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Cap 67, 2000 Rev Ed) (“CLTPA”).

Background

2 On 12 September 2005, the applicant was arrested by officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) pursuant to s 25 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) on suspicion of having consumed a controlled drug, an offence under s 8(b)(i) of the said Act. A urine test showed that he had consumed a controlled drug. It should be noted at this juncture that he was subsequently convicted and sentenced in the Subordinate Courts on one charge of consuming a controlled drug.

3 On 13 September 2005, the applicant was detained pursuant to s 44(1) of the CLTPA. On the following day, he was detained for another 24 hours by order of an Assistant Director of the CNB under s 44(2) of the CLTPA, read with s 47(3) of the same Act. Later that day, he was ordered to be detained for an additional 14 days by a Deputy Director of the CNB pursuant to his powers under s 44(3) of the CLTPA, read with s 47(3).

4 On 29 September 2005, the Minister for Home Affairs (“the Minister”), with the Public Prosecutor’s consent, issued an order pursuant to s 30 of the CLTPA, directing that the applicant be detained for 12 months at the Queenstown Remand Prison (the “Detention Order”). The Detention Order was in the following terms:

Whereas I, WONG KAN SENG, Minister for Home Affairs, am satisfied that Wong Sin Yee NRIC No: S1328846A of Blk 467 Ang Mo Kio Avenue 10 #02-1004 Singapore 560467 has been associated with activities of a criminal nature and that it is necessary that the said Wong Sin Yee should be detained in the interests of public safety, peace and good order:

NOW, THEREFORE, I, in pursuance of the provisions of section 30 of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act and with the consent of the Public Prosecutor, hereby direct that the said Wong Sin Yee be detained in the Queenstown Remand Prison, Singapore, for a period of twelve months commencing from the date hereof.

Made this 29th of September, 2005.

5 On the same day, the applicant was informed as follows:

… [T]he Minister for Home Affairs has in exercise of his powers under section 30(a) of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act ordered that you be detained for a period of 12 months in Queenstown Remand Prison with effect from 29 Sep 2005.

2 The nature of your criminal activities is as follows:

(a) You have been involved in activities relating to or connected with trafficking of ketamine.

(b) Particulars of drug trafficking:

Between early 2004 and Apr 2005, you were a syndicate leader smuggling ketamine from Malaysia to Taiwan and from Malaysia to China via Hong Kong.

3 A copy of the Order of Detention is attached for your retention.

4 Your case will be referred to a Criminal Law Advisory Committee for its consideration. At the hearing, you will be given the opportunity to make representations to the Committee. The Secretary of the Committee will notify you in due course of the date of its hearing.

6 On 3 October 2005, the Minister, as is required by s 31 of the CLTPA, referred the applicant’s case to the Advisory Committee, a panel of prominent private citizens, including Justices of the Peace, senior lawyers and community leaders constituted under s 39 of the CLTPA. Section 31 of the CLTPA provides as follows:

31.— (1) Every order made by the Minister under section 30 shall, together with a written statement of the grounds upon which the Minister made the order, be referred by the Minister to an advisory committee constituted as provided in section 39, within 28 days of the making of the order.

(2) The advisory committee shall submit to the President a written report on the making of the order and may make therein such recommendations as it shall think fit.

(3) The President shall consider the report and may cancel or confirm the order and in confirming the order may make thereto such variations as he thinks fit.

7 On 13 October 2005, the applicant was notified by the secretary of the Advisory Committee that his case would be considered on 8 November 2005. He was informed that he could make representations to the Advisory Committee. The applicant’s lawyer, Mr Mak Kok Weng (“Mr Mak”), who represented him at the hearing, applied for an adjournment of the case and the hearing was postponed to 8 December 2005.

8 The written representations on behalf of the applicant that were submitted to the Advisory Committee by Mr Mak were as follows:

1 The allegation against Mr Wong was that he was involved in activities relating to or connected with the trafficking of Ketamine.

2 More particularly, it was alleged that between early 2004 and April 2005, he was a syndicate leader smuggling Ketamine from Malaysia to Taiwan and from Malaysia to China via Hong Kong.

3 There was no allegation whatsoever that Mr Wong was engaged in any criminal activities in Singapore.

4 Mr Wong emphatically denies that he had been involved in any criminal activity either in Singapore or elsewhere in the world.

5 Mr Wong, an advocate & solicitor, was convicted of an offence after being involved in a scuffle with a fellow motorist. Although the offence did not involve dishonesty or professional misconduct, he was suspended from legal practice for 2 years.

6 Mr Wong well knew of the consequences of engaging in the kind of criminal activities alleged against him and would never engage in such activities.

7 During the period when he was alleged to have been involved in criminal activities, he in fact was making preparations to resume legal practice. He has a wife and 2 young children aged 12 years and 10 years respectively. He has a bright future ahead and was looking forward to practising law again. He was, in fact, issued with a Practising Certificate shortly before his arrest and detention.

8 The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Cap 67) (“the Act”) was intended “to make temporary provisions for the maintenance of public order…” as stated in its preamble.

9 The Act was designed to deal with criminal acts in Singapore which threaten the country’s public order.

10 The allegations against Mr Wong are in relation to acts outside Singapore. Additionally Mr Wong was accused of criminal activities which took place between early 2004 and April 2005. On the date of his detention ie 12 September 2005, such alleged activities had ceased. As such there cannot be any justification for detaining him “in the interests of public safety, peace and good order…”.

11 It is respectively hoped that if the committee is not inclined to recommend Mr Wong’s release from detention, perhaps it would recommend that he be placed under Police supervision.

12 Mr Wong’s passport has already been cancelled. Under Police supervision, he would not be permitted to leave Singapore without authority. Effectively, he would not be able to engage in the criminal activities alleged.

9 The Advisory Committee heard the applicant’s case on 8 November 2005, 8 December 2005 and 12 January 2006. After receiving the report of the Advisory Committee, the Detention Order was confirmed by the President on 10 March 2006.

10 In July 2006, a Review Committee, which is different from the Advisory Committee, met to consider whether or not the applicant’s Detention Order should be extended. The Review Committee forwarded its recommendation to the President and on 18 August 2006, the President ordered that the applicant’s Detention Order be extended for another 12 months with effect from 29 August 2006.

11 The applicant, who believes that his detention under the CLTPA is unlawful, instituted the present proceedings to challenge the basis for his detention.

Scope of judicial review

12 In Chng Suan Tze v Minister of Home Affairs [1988] SLR 132 (“Chng Suan Tze”), the Court of Appeal ruled that the scope of review by the courts varies according to whether or not a discretion granted to an authority depended on the establishment of an objective jurisdictional or precedent fact. If an objective jurisdictional or precedent fact has to be established, the scope of review extends to whether the evidence justifies the decision reached by the authority. On the other hand, where no jurisdictional or precedent fact has to be established, the scope of judicial review is strictly limited to whether the authority’s exercise of discretion was illegal, procedurally improper or irrational in the Wednesbury sense (see Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp [1948] 1 KB 223), namely that the decision is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it (see Council of Civil Service Unions and others v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, at 410).

13 In the present case, both the applicant and the Attorney-General’s Chambers accepted that the grounds for reviewing the Minister’s discretion under s 30 of the CLTPA and the President’s discretion under s 31 of the said Act are limited to illegality, procedural impropriety and irrationality in the Wednesbury sense.

Illegality

14 The applicant contended that the Minister’s decision is illegal for the following reasons:

(a) The grounds of detention are outside the scope of the CLTPA;

(b) The applicant was not informed of the grounds of arrest until he was issued with the Detention Order; and

(c) There was mala fides on the part of the detaining authorities.

Whether the grounds of detention are outside the scope of the CLTPA

15 The plaintiff asserted that s 30 of the CLTPA does not authorise the detention of a person for criminal activities outside Singapore. He emphasized that even if the allegations against him were true, the activities in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Borissik Svetlana v Urban Redevelopment Authority
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 2 Julio 2009
    ...Executive Officer of the URA was concurrently the Deputy Secretary of Special Duties. However, as was made clear in Re Wong Sin Yee [2007] SGHC 147, the issue is not whether the person advising the Minister is biased but whether the Minister is biased. There was not a shred of evidence that......
  • Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General and another matter
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 25 Noviembre 2015
    ...acts abroad, these did not have any impact on the public safety, peace and good order in Singapore. A similar case, Re Wong Sin Yee [2007] 4 SLR(R) 676 (“Wong Sin Yee”), was cited by both In Wong Sin Yee, the applicant was detained on suspicion for being the head of a drug trafficking syndi......
  • Ho Hoe Theng v Jurong Country Club
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 18 Abril 2013
    ...its own procedure, the courts will be less inclined to intervene The following authorities are also instructive: Re Wong Sin Yee [2007] 4 SLR(R) 676, University of Ceylon v Fernando [1960] 1 WLR 223, R v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1994] 1 AC 531. The DC’s refrain from makin......
  • Huang Danmin v Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 18 Mayo 2010
    ...of Corruption Act (Cap. 241, 1993 Rev Ed)). Both Ms Koh and counsel for the Respondent have cited the case of Re Wong Sin Yee [2007] 4 SLR(R) 676 to show that a statute should be interpreted as having extra-territorial effect if doing so would serve its underlying purpose. In that case, the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • LOCALISING ADMINISTRATIVE LAW IN SINGAPORE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2017, December 2017
    • 1 Diciembre 2017
    ...position in earlier cases under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Cap 67, 2000 Rev Ed): see, most notably, Re Wong Sin Yee[2007] 4 SLR(R) 676. 34Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General[2016] 1 SLR 779 at [1] and [90], per Sundaresh Menon CJ. 35[2012] 2 SLR 49. 36 Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed. 37......
  • Administrative and Constitutional Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2015, December 2015
    • 1 Diciembre 2015
    ...illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety, which was the approach adopted in another CLTPA detention case, Re Wong Sin Yee[2007] 4 SLR(R) 676, but failed to establish probable cause that the detention was unlawful on these grounds: Tan Seet Eng (HC) at [28]. Although a detention ......
  • CURIAL DEFERENCE IN SINGAPORE PUBLIC LAW
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2017, December 2017
    • 1 Diciembre 2017
    ...and the Arts[1996] 1 SLR(R) 304 at [30]. 34R v Minister of Defence, ex parte Smith[1996] 1 QB 517, per Sir Thomas Bingham at 556. 35[2007] 4 SLR(R) 676. 36Re Wong Sin Yee[2007] 4 SLR(R) 676 at [46]. 37 On Wednesbury irrationality, see Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Co......
  • AN ANALYSIS OF SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW IN SINGAPOREAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2013, December 2013
    • 1 Diciembre 2013
    ...294. 60 [1996] 1 SLR(R) 294 at [44]. 61 Chan Hiang Leng Colin v Minister for Information and the Arts [1996] 1 SLR(R) 294 at [44]. 62[2007] 4 SLR(R) 676. 63 Cap 67, 2000 Rev Ed. Michael Hor (“Law and Terror: Singapore Stories and Malaysian Dilemmas” in Global Anti-Terrorism Law and Policy (......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT