Salwant Singh s/o Amer Singh v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tay Yong Kwang J
• Judgment Date: 24 September 2008
• Neutral Citation: [2008] SGHC 164
• Plaintiff Counsel: Applicant in person
• Published date: 25 September 2008
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Defendant Counsel: Christopher Ong Siu Jin (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing

24 September 2008

Tay Yong Kwang J:

1 The applicant is presently serving a sentence of 20 years preventive detention. By this application, he seeks the following relief, pursuant to s 327(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.

2 The said s 327(b) and (c) fall within Chapter XXXIII of the CPC entitled “Order for Review of Detention”. Before 1 January 2006, the title of this chapter was “Habeas corpus and directions in the nature of habeas corpus”. This change in terminology was made in conjunction with amendments made to the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5) to simplify civil procedure and to abandon the use of Latin and archaic terms. Section 327 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.

3 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.

4 On 20 May 2003, 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) and consented to have 760 similar charges taken into consideration for the purpose of sentence. He was legally represented at that time. On 11 June 2003, he was sentenced to undergo 12 years’ preventive detention. Both the applicant and the Public Prosecutor appealed against this sentence.

5 On 14 August 2003, Yong Pung How CJ heard the appeals. He rejected the applicant’s attempt to retract his plea of guilt and dismissed his appeal. The applicant had alleged that the prosecution had “cowed and deceived him” into pleading guilty. Yong CJ allowed the prosecution’s appeal and enhanced the period of preventive detention to the maximum of 20 years provided by law. The applicant is now serving this period of preventive detention.

6 On 11 May 2004, the applicant took out Criminal Motion No. 9 of 2004 for a review of the seizure of certain property by the Commercial Affairs Department and the return of seized documents. He wanted the property and the documents returned in order to appeal to the Court of Appeal to prove that he was innocent of the charges on which he had been convicted. On 28 May 2004, Lai Siu Chiu J dismissed this application on the ground that it had no legal basis as that the applicant had exhausted all avenues of appeal in respect of his conviction and sentence.

7 Undaunted by this, the applicant proceeded to file Criminal Motion No. 16 of 2004 for essentially the same relief as that sought in Criminal Motion No. 9 of 2004. On 26 August 2004, Choo Han Teck J dismissed this further application.

8 The applicant then filed Criminal Motion No. 20 of 2004 to apply for an order to set aside the decision of the Registrar of the Subordinate Courts who had refused his request for a copy of the notes of the pre-trial conferences held in relation to the cheating charges which were then pending against him. On 10 September 2004, Lai Kew Chai J dismissed this application. The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2004.

9 On 21 Sept 2004, the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s application in Criminal Motion No. 18 of 2004, taken out pursuant to s 50 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed), for an extension of time to appeal against Lai Siu Chiu J’s decision at [6] above (see the Court of Appeal’s decision in Salwant Singh v PP [2005] 1 SLR 36). The Court of Appeal noted at [22] of that decision that there was no further avenue of appeal available to the applicant in relation to his conviction and sentence.

10 On 22 November 2004, the Court of Appeal heard and dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2004, which was...