Salwant Singh s/o Amer Singh v Public Prosecutor (No 2)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 02 February 2005
• Date: 02 February 2005
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 15 of 2004
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Salwant Singh s/o Amer Singh

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[2005] SGCA 7

Chao Hick Tin JA

,

MPH Rubin J

and

Kan Ting Chiu J

Criminal Appeal No 15 of 2004

Court of Appeal

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Record of proceedings–Whether appellant entitled to copy of notes recorded at pre-trial conference of criminal case–Whether pre-trial conference part of criminal proceedings–Whether notes recorded at pre-trial conference forming part of “record of proceedings” in Criminal Procedure Code–Section 400 (1) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)

The appellant pleaded guilty to five charges of cheating under s 420 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) with the remaining 760 charges being taken into account for the purpose of sentencing. He was sentenced by the district judge to 12 years' preventive detention. This was enhanced to 20 years' preventive detention by the High Court when the Prosecution appealed on the ground that the initial sentence was manifestly inadequate.

Shortly after the appeal, the appellant requested the notes recorded at the pre-trial conferences (“PTCs”), including any video recording and any orders issued at those hearings. The Registrar of the Subordinate Courts refused this request and this decision was upheld on appeal on the grounds that the appellant's request had no legal basis in law.

The appellant subsequently filed a criminal motion heard by Lai Kew Chai J who held that as PTCs only dealt with the administrative aspects of case management and no judicial decisions were made at the PTCs, the notes recorded did not form part of the “record of proceedings” within the meaning of s 400 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) (the “CPC”). The appellant filed the present appeal against that decision.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) It was important to bear in mind the context in which the expression “or other part of the record” in s 400 (1) of the CPC appeared. Clearly, such “other part of the record” had to relate to the proceedings in which a judgment or order affecting the appellant was made. There was no allegation in this case that at any of the PTCs, the district judge or Registrar had made any order affecting the appellant: at [9].

(2) A PTC in a criminal case was not provided for in the CPC or any other statute. It was really a procedure initiated by the courts for the purposes of case management with the aims of encouraging disclosure and the narrowing down of issues to facilitate the trial of the case. What took place at the PTCs did not form part of the criminal proceedings in which the appellant was convicted and sentenced. Thus, the notes taken at the PTCs were irrelevant to the cross-appeals: at [10].

(3) It did not follow that just because s 400 (1) of the CPC did not apply, that the court could not, pursuant to its inherent jurisdiction, have ordered the production of the notes taken at the PTCs. Regard must be had to what transpired at the trial and at the appeal before the High Court: at [11].

(4) In the exchange of correspondence between the Prosecution and the appellant, it was clear that there was no agreement reached for the Prosecution to not press for a deterrent sentence. More importantly, when the Prosecution asked for preventive detention, there was no outcry of breach of understanding by either the appellant or his counsel. It is most telling that the appellant had only submitted that the imposition of preventive detention would be too harsh on the appellant: at [13] to [15].

(5) The appellant's applications were merely attempts to reopen the charges on which he had been convicted and arrested. What he was seeking to do was vexatious, amounting to an abuse of legal process. The process of the...