Tan Seet Eng v AG

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeTay Yong Kwang J
Judgment Date22 January 2015
Neutral Citation[2015] SGHC 18
Plaintiff CounselHamidul Haq, Thong Chee Kun, Istyana Ibrahim and Ho Lifen (Rajah & Tann LLP)
Date22 January 2015
Hearing Date19 November 2014,28 October 2014
Docket NumberOriginating Summons No 772 of 2014
Year2015
Citation[2015] SGHC 18
Defendant CounselHay Hung Chun, Jeyendran Jeyapal, Kevin Tan and Ailene Chou (Attorney-General's Chambers)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Published date27 November 2015
Tay Yong Kwang J: Introduction

This matter arose out of the detention of the applicant, Tan Seet Eng (“the Applicant”), under s 30 of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Cap 67, 2000 Rev Ed) (“CLTPA”) for allegedly being involved in match-fixing activities globally. In this application, the Applicant prayed for the following orders: that an Order for Review of Detention (“ORD”) be issued forthwith against the Minister for Home Affairs and/or the Superintendent of Institution A3, Cluster A, Changi Prison Complex; alternatively, that a summons for the ORD be issued; and in the event that a summons is issued, that the Applicant be brought before the court during the hearing of the application for the ORD.

The Attorney-General (“the AG”) opposed the present application.

Both parties first appeared before me on 28 October 2014. The hearing could not proceed due to a dispute over some allegations made by the Applicant in his reply affidavit filed on 21 October 2014. I therefore adjourned the hearing and allowed the AG to file further reply affidavits and, if necessary, for the Applicant to file his final reply affidavit thereafter. After the hearing, the AG filed three further affidavits to deal with the Applicant’s allegations that he was not asked to make representations to the Criminal Law Advisory Committee (Review) (“CLAR”) and that he was not informed of the outcome of the CLAR hearing. No further reply affidavit was filed by the Applicant thereafter. The hearing subsequently took place on 19 November 2014. After hearing the parties, I dismissed the application. The Applicant has appealed against my decision. I now set out my reasons for dismissing the application.

The facts The arrest

The Applicant was first arrested on 16 September 2013 for allegedly being involved in match-fixing activities globally. On the first day of his arrest, the Applicant gave a statement under s 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) (“PCA”). The Applicant alleged that the statement was recorded by ASP Ho Kah King Joseph (“ASP Ho”), an officer from the Commercial Affairs Department (“CAD”). As will be seen subsequently, the Applicant has relied on the fact that the statement was recorded by a CAD officer, and not an officer from the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (“CPIB”), as one of the grounds for establishing procedural impropriety. It was further alleged by the Applicant that ASP Ho continued to record the statement on the second and third days of the Applicant’s arrest.

The detention under the CLTPA

Within 48 hours of his initial arrest, the Applicant was arrested by ASP Ho under s 44(1) of the CLTPA on 18 September 2013. Following his arrest, the Applicant was detained for a further period of 48 hours under s 44(2) of the CLTPA. On 20 September 2013, before the expiry of the 48-hour period, the Applicant was detained for a further period of 14 days under s 44(3) of the CLTPA. At that point in time, there was an exchange of correspondence between the Applicant’s solicitors, Rajah & Tann LLP (“R&T”), and the authorities. The solicitors requested access to the Applicant but their request was turned down by the authorities.

Originating Summons No 913 of 2013

On 27 September 2013, an application for an ORD to be issued forthwith, among other things, against the Head of the Criminal Investigation Department was made in Originating Summons No 913 of 2013. This application was subsequently withdrawn on 4 October 2013.

The Minister’s order

On 2 October 2013, the Minister for Home Affairs (“the Minister”) issued and served an order under s 30 of the CLTPA on the Applicant. In that order, the Minister stated that he was satisfied that the Applicant had been associated with activities of a criminal nature and that it was necessary for the Applicant to be detained in the interests of public safety, peace and good order. The period of detention specified in the order was 12 months from the date of the order (ie, 2 October 2013). The grounds and particulars relied upon by the authorities are reproduced below:

(a) You have between 2009 and 2013 been the leader and financer of a global soccer match-fixing syndicate operating from Singapore that carried out soccer match-fixing activities in many parts of the world, the particulars of which are as stated in paragraph (b) below.

(b) Particulars of soccer match-fixing activities: (i) You were recruiting runners in Singapore and directing match-fixing agents and runners from Singapore to assist in the conduct of soccer match fixing activities between 2009 and September 2013. (ii) You were financing and assisting, by providing a contact who could arrange for a corrupt referee, in soccer match-fixing activities in Egypt between September and December 2010. (iii) You were financing soccer match-fixing activities in South Africa in May 2010. (iv) You were directing and financing soccer match-fixing activities in Nigeria in June 2011. (v) You were financing soccer match-fixing activities in Turkey in February 2011. (vi) You were assisting in attempted soccer match-fixing activities in Trinidad and Tobago in mid-2011 by sending a match-fixing agent to provide support to another match-fixing agent in relation to match-fixing activities.

A copy of the detention order was forwarded to R&T on 4 October 2013. R&T replied on the same day to enquire about the expected date of hearing before the Criminal Law Advisory Committee (“CLAC”). R&T was subsequently informed that the hearing would take place on 17 October 2013.

The CLAC

The hearing before the CLAC took place over the course of two days on 17 October 2013 and 5 November 2013. It was undisputed that R&T made submissions on behalf of the Applicant before the CLAC.

On 5 November 2013, the CLAC submitted its written report with its recommendations to the President in accordance with s 31(2) of the CLTPA. The President subsequently confirmed the detention order pursuant to s 31(3) of the CLTPA on 7 April 2014. R&T was informed of the President’s confirmation by way of a letter dated 8 April 2014.

The present application

The present application was commenced on 13 August 2014 under O 54 r 1 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) (“RC”). R&T wrote to the authorities on 23 September 2014 to urge the CLAR to consider releasing the Applicant unconditionally, or in the alternative, to consider substituting the detention order with an order for police supervision. In a reply dated 29 September 2014, R&T was informed that the CLAR had reviewed the Applicant’s case in August 2014 and had also submitted its report to the President. The President had considered the Applicant’s case, including the report by the CLAR, and on the advice of the Cabinet, extended the detention order for a period of one year with effect from 2 October 2014. R&T was also informed that their letter dated 23 September 2014 would be placed before the CLAR at the next review in August 2015.

At this juncture, I note that the Applicant had alleged, in his reply affidavit dated 21 October 2014, that he was not informed of the specific date of the CLAR hearing and was not asked to make representations before the CLAR. The Applicant also alleged that he was not informed of the outcome of the CLAR hearing until he received the letter dated 29 September 2014 from R&T. As discussed earlier (see [2] above), the AG took issue with the Applicant’s allegations at the hearing on 28 October 2014 and subsequently filed three affidavits to rebut the Applicant’s allegations. A copy of the representations written by the Applicant to the CLAR was exhibited in the affidavits. Apart from that, a written confirmation dated 26 September 2014, in which the Applicant acknowledged receipt of the order extending the period of his detention, was also produced to rebut the Applicant’s allegations that he was not informed of the outcome of the CLAR hearing. Nevertheless, counsel for the Applicant, Mr Thong Chee Kun (“Mr Thong”), informed me that the Applicant’s case was not based on those specific allegations. The Applicant also elected not to file a further affidavit to address the documents exhibited in the three reply affidavits. I therefore proceeded on the basis that the Applicant was not relying on those allegations to support his case.

The parties’ arguments The Applicant’s arguments

At the outset, the Applicant submitted that an objective test, as opposed to a subjective test, was applicable to the present case. In other words, the Minister’s and the President’s decisions to issue and to confirm the detention order had to be objectively satisfied on reasonable grounds. This was on the basis that there was no ouster clause in the CLTPA. The Applicant relied on the three grounds of review, namely, illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety.

In relation to the issue of illegality, it was submitted that there was no evidence that the Applicant had engaged in criminal activities which affected the interests of public safety, peace and good order in Singapore. The Applicant argued that the evidence, at most, suggested that he had been involved in illegal betting and not match-fixing. It was highlighted that these were distinct offences. The Applicant submitted that in any event, the alleged offence of corruption and match-fixing did not fall within the category of offences contemplated by the CLTPA. It was argued that economic or financial crimes such as corruption did not involve physical violence or harm to society, unlike drug trafficking, illegal moneylending and secret societies.

The Applicant also submitted that the Minister and the President did not act in accordance with the purposes of the CLTPA given that the Applicant had already confessed to the offence of illegal betting. It was argued that this went against Parliamentary intent to use the CLTPA only as a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Public Prosecutor v Ng Kok Wai
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 30 September 2022
    ...to refer to the extension of Singapore criminal law to extraterritorial criminal acts: see e.g., Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General [2015] 2 SLR 453 at [44]; Taw Cheng Kong v Public Prosecutor [1998] 1 SLR(R) 78 at [72] and [83]; Wong Yuh Lan v Public Prosecutor [2012] 4 SLR 845 at [13] and [2......
  • Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General and another matter
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 25 November 2015
    ...(“the Judge”) on 19 November 2014 and dismissed on the same day. The Judge’s decision is reported as Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General [2015] 2 SLR 453 (“the GD”), and the present appeal is brought against that decision. We reserved judgment after hearing the parties’ submissions and, in this......
  • Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General and another matter
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 25 November 2015
    ...(“the Judge”) on 19 November 2014 and dismissed on the same day. The Judge’s decision is reported as Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General [2015] 2 SLR 453 (“the GD”), and the present appeal is brought against that decision. We reserved judgment after hearing the parties’ submissions and, in this......
3 books & journal articles
  • Administrative and Constitutional Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2015, December 2015
    • 1 December 2015
    ...in the interests of ‘public safety, peace and good order’. 1.115 This was upheld by the High Court in Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General[2015] 2 SLR 453 (‘Tan Seet Eng (HC)’) on grounds of administrative legality. A person could be detained under the CLTPA even if there was sufficient evidence......
  • LOCALISING ADMINISTRATIVE LAW IN SINGAPORE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2017, December 2017
    • 1 December 2017
    ...1196, per Lord Diplock. 11 Chiu Teng @ Kallang Pte Ltd v Singapore Land Authority [2014] 1 SLR 1047. 12 Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General [2015] 2 SLR 453; Vijaya Kumar s/o Rajendran v Attorney-General[2015] SGHC 244. 13 Vijaya Kumar s/o Rajendran v Attorney-General [2015] SGHC 244. 14 See Ca......
  • CURIAL DEFERENCE IN SINGAPORE PUBLIC LAW
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2017, December 2017
    • 1 December 2017
    ...59Re Wong Sin Yee[2007] 4 SLR(R) 676 at [46]. 60Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General[2016] 1 SLR 779 at [8]. 61Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General[2015] 2 SLR 453 at [31]–[35]. 62Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General[2016] 1 SLR 779 at [146]–[147]. 63Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General[2016] 1 SLR 779 at [148......

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