| |
| |
 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
SINGAPORE : What happens when the authorities go after one offender but not others who run afoul of the law?
In the case of the Bollywood Veggies farm - which has been hauled to court for failing to run building safety checks - its owner, Mrs Ivy Singh-Lim, alleges that such prosecutorial discretion infringes her constitutional rights.
On Wednesday, following three days of hearings, District Judge Jasbendar Kaur adjourned the case after she called for submissions from lawyers acting for Bollywood Veggies and the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) on whether "malicious prosecution" is a valid defence in criminal matters.
The 4-hectare farm in Kranji was charged with failing to get the structures on its land inspected, and failing to appoint a professional engineer to conduct these checks, despite receiving a notice and three subsequent reminders from the BCA to do so.
The farm could be fined up to S$40,000 if found culpable.
The court has to decide, among other things, if it can hear evidence on Mrs Singh-Lim's claim that the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in this instance was improper.
Bollywood Veggies' lawyer Engelin Teh had grilled BCA officers on why the authority had not gone after neighbouring farms despite their contraventions - operating properties without temporary occupation permits (TOP) or certificates of statutory completion (CSC) over many years.
She had built her case on the argument that the charges were "not bona fide" because the authorities had singled out the farm for enforcement action.
The Senior Counsel also said that the Building Control Act's safety inspection regime was never intended to apply to the farms in Kranji and that the BCA had not prosecuted these farms earlier because it knew the farms could not obtain the TOP or CSC.
A BCA senior executive engineer had testified that there were "too many" errant farms in Kranji.
The hearing will resume next month.
- CNA/al
|
