Salwant Singh s/o Amer Singh v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Woo Bih Li J
• Judgment Date: 25 March 2009
• Neutral Citation: [2009] SGHC 67
• Docket Number: Criminal Motion No 32 of 2008
• Date: 25 March 2009
• Published date: 26 March 2009
• Year: 2009
• Plaintiff Counsel: Applicant in person
• Citation: [2009] SGHC 67
• Defendant Counsel: Christopher Ong Siu Jin (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Courts and Jurisdiction,Request for counsel to be assigned for non-capital case,Whether applicant could rely on Supreme Court (Criminal Appeals) Rules (Cap 322, R 6, 1997 Rev Ed),Court of criminal appeal,Application to nullify registrarÂ’s decision,Appeal against refusal to review detention

25 March 2009

Woo Bih Li J:

1 On 20 May 2003, Salwant Singh s/o Amer Singh, holder of NRIC No. S1570345H (“the Applicant”) pleaded guilty in a district court to five charges of cheating under s 420 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed). On 11 June 2003, he was sentenced to 12 years’ preventive detention. Both he and the Public Prosecutor appealed against the sentence. On 14 August 2003, the High Court allowed the prosecution’s appeal and enhanced the period of preventive detention to the maximum of 20 years provided by law.

2 In Criminal Motion No. 17 of 2008 (“CM 17/2008”), the Applicant had sought the following reliefs pursuant to s 327(1)(b) and (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) (“CPC”) and Article 9(2) of the Constitution:

(a) the issuance of an order to the Superintendent of Prisons, directing the production of the applicant before the High Court;

(b) the review of the applicant’s continued and unlawful detention;

(c) the applicant’s immediate and unconditional release.

3 Section 327(1) of the CPC provides as follows:

(1) Any person —

(a) who is detained in any prison within the limits of Singapore on a warrant of extradition under any law for the time being in force in Singapore relating to extradition of fugitive offenders;

(b) who is alleged to be illegally or improperly detained in public or private custody within those limits; or

(c) who claims to be brought before the court to be dealt with according to law,

may apply to the High Court for an Order for Review of Detention.

4 Article 9(2) of the Constitution provides:

Where a complaint is made to the High Court or any Judge thereof that a person is being unlawfully detained, the Court shall inquire into the complaint and, unless satisfied that the detention is lawful, shall order him to be produced before the Court and release him.

5 On 15 August 2008, Justice Tay Yong Kwang (“Tay J”) dismissed CM 17/2008. Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2008 (“CCA 8/2008”) is an appeal by the Applicant against the decision by Tay J in CM 17/2008. The appeal was filed notwithstanding s 335 of the CPC which states:

No appeal shall lie from an order directing or refusing to direct the issue of an Order for Review of Detention or from an order made under section 328 but the Court or Judge may at any time adjourn the hearing for the decision of a Court consisting of 3 or more Judges.

6 The Applicant subsequently submitted an application on 20 October 2008 to the Chief Justice under r 11(b) of the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeals) Rules Revised Edition 1997 (“SCCA...