Iswaran loses bid to get prosecution to hand over statements of all its witnesses

SINGAPORE: A High Court judge on Friday (Jul 19) tossed out a bid by former transport minister S Iswaran to compel the prosecution to hand over statements of all its witnesses.

Iswaran's lawyers, led by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, had already lost their first attempt in a June hearing not open to the public, and this was their second try in a criminal revision heard on Jul 5.

Justice Vincent Hoong said there was nothing in the wording of the Criminal Procedure Code to support the defence's argument that the prosecution is required to disclose all conditioned statements of its witnesses or draft statements of witnesses who do not want to sign off on conditioned statements.

Justice Hoong also rejected the defence's argument that there has been an abuse of process or serious injustice on the prosecution's part.

The development comes about a month before Iswaran is set to go on trial in the High Court for his criminal charges. CNA understands his trial begins on Aug 13.

Corruption cases are usually heard in the State Courts, but the prosecution had successfully applied in March for this case to be heard in the High Court.

The 62-year-old Singaporean faces a total of 35 charges comprising 32 counts of obtaining valuables as a public servant, two counts of corruption and one of obstructing justice.

These relate to his interactions with property tycoon Ong Beng Seng and Mr Lum Kok Seng, the managing director of Singapore-listed Lum Chang Holdings.

Neither Mr Ong nor Mr Lum have been charged, with the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) previously saying that they would take a decision over the investigations against both men after Iswaran's case has been completed.

Iswaran's lawyers had called on the High Court to exercise its revisionary powers to set aside an assistant registrar's orders made in a criminal case disclosure conference (CCDC) on Jun 11.

A CCDC is a formal system where an accused person and the prosecution discloses information about the case to facilitate the trial process. It is usually held privately and is not open to the public or the media.

Mr Singh had asked the prosecution to make available all conditioned statements - signed written statements used as evidence in a court case - to the defence.

He alleged that his client was being singled out, with the effect that he would be "discriminated against". 

Mr Singh and his team from his eponymous law firm wanted the High Court to order the prosecution to provide to Iswaran the following:

• Conditioned statements from all agreeable witnesses in the prosecution's list of witnesses.
• A letter identifying the witnesses who do not agree to provide conditioned statements, and each witness' reasons for not agreeing
• Draft conditioned statements setting out the evidence the prosecution intends to lead from the witnesses who do not agree to give conditioned statements.

The veteran lawyer also claimed that the prosecution was initially prepared to give the defence conditioned statements when the prosecution wanted to proceed with Mr Lum's case first.

However, after the defence was granted its application for all charges to be heard together in one trial, the prosecution took the position for the first time that they were under no obligation to provide conditioned statements, claimed Mr Singh.

The prosecution, led by Deputy Attorney-General and Senior Counsel Tai Wei Shyong, said the defence was mischaracterising the prosecution's position and that the defence was the one changing its position.

JUDGE'S VERDICT

In his verdict, Justice Hoong dismissed Iswaran's application, saying the assistant registrar's position was not in error and there were no irregularities.

The application had centred around Section 214(1)(d) from the Criminal Procedure Code, which states that the case for the prosecution must contain "the statements of the witnesses under section 264 (referring to conditioned statements) that are intended by the prosecution to be admitted at the trial".

Justice Hoong said the plain meaning of those words was that the prosecution is required only to include as part of its case those statements it intends to admit at trial.

Therefore, if the prosecution does not intend to admit such statements at trial, it is not required to file those statements.

Justice Hoong said the defence's interpretation of Section 214(1)(d), as referring to statements the prosecution may intend to admit at trial, would lead to an "impermissible extension" of the section.

He said Iswaran had received sufficient information that disclosed the factual premise of the charges against him, and it was "not the law that the prosecution had to detail its intended case at trial to the point of informing (Iswaran) of exactly what each witness would testify, which exhibit each witness would give evidence on, and what the evidence on each exhibit would entail".

The prosecution has disclosed a list of witnesses including Ms Ivy Chan Wan Hiang, Iswaran's then-personal assistant and Iswaran's wife Ms Taylor Kay Mary.

The prosecution has also provided a list of exhibits to the defence, which includes:

• Statements from Iswaran
• A letter of acceptance in October 2016 for a contract between Lum Chang Building Contractors and the Land Transport Authority for works to the Tanah Merah Station
• Contractual agreements relating to the Singapore Grand Prix
• Messages between Iswaran and Mr Lum
• Messages and call logs between Iswaran and Mr Ong
• Messages and call logs between Iswaran and others linked to Singapore GP such as Syn Wai Hung Colin and Mok Chee Liang
• Documents related to the purchase of tickets to shows in London and sporting events
• F1 photographs and other pictures from Iswaran's devices
• Documents relating to flights and expenses for a trip to Doha in December 2022 and hotel bookings

Iswaran declined comment when asked by the media outside the courtroom for a response on the outcome.

The former minister had resigned from his positions in government two days before he was first charged in court in January.

Before this, he was placed on a leave of absence pending the investigation by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau.
 
If convicted of obtaining a valuable thing as a public servant, Iswaran can be jailed for up to two years, fined, or both.
 
If convicted of corruptly obtaining gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act, he can be jailed for up to seven years, fined up to S$100,000 (US$74,400), or both.
 
If convicted of obstructing justice, he can be jailed for up to seven years, fined, or both.