Iswaran's lawyers make second bid to get prosecution to hand over all its 56 witnesses' statements

SINGAPORE — In response to former transport minister S Iswaran's bid to get access to written statements by witnesses who are set to testify in his trial, prosecutors said that the defence is "trying to get the prosecution to give more than it needs to".

Deputy Attorney-General Tai Wei Shyong also told the court that the prosecution had already provided a list of the 56 witnesses, among other things, and was not required to provide conditioned statements from these witnesses.

Mr Tai said that "in no corruption case that I am aware of" has a suspect who has bribed someone given evidence through a conditioned statement.

In the High Court on Friday (July 5), Senior Counsel Davinder Singh — who leads Iswaran's team of lawyers — argued that Section 214(1)(d) from the Criminal Procedure Code meant that his client was entitled to the prosecution's facts and evidence, alongside other documents such as Iswaran's statements.

He sought written conditioned statements from all 56 witnesses. These are written evidence in any criminal proceeding that holds the same effect as oral evidence and they have to be signed by the person who wrote it, among other requirements listed in the Criminal Procedure Code.

Should the witness decline to sign off on the document, Mr Singh asked that the prosecution provide the drafts of these statements.

The defence team had argued for two hours to get these written statements.  

It wanted to "ensure the trial is managed in an efficient and fair manner" and "not second-guess" the prosecution's case.

This is its second attempt in asking for these statements. An earlier request was rejected in a June hearing not open to the public.

Justice Vincent Hoong reserved judgement for Friday's hearing that ran from about 10am to 5.40pm. He will deliver his decision at a later undisclosed date.

Iswaran faces 35 charges mostly related to alleged bribery and corruption involving property tycoon Ong Beng Seng and construction company boss Lum Kok Seng.

Among other things, he is alleged to have obtained valuable items worth about S$218,000 from Mr Ong and S$18,957 worth of such items from Mr Lum.

In May, Iswaran won his bid to have his corruption charges heard in one trial instead of two as proposed by the prosecution.

His lawyers argued then that the former minister was dealing with “very close and dear friends” in the two sets of charges, relating to Mr Ong and Mr Lum.

THE DEFENCE'S ARGUMENT

The criminal revision hearing on Friday began with Mr Singh telling the court why the defence wanted the statements from the prosecution's 56 witnesses.

He also said: “By keeping their cards close to their chest, (the prosecution is) lengthening the trial… wasting everybody's time to go on the stand to say, ‘Yeah, I signed an email’.” 

By not providing these written statements, Mr Singh said that the prosecution can "avoid an adverse inference and my ability to object to their evidence".

He claimed that the evidence provided by the prosecution had left the defence "inferring" the prosecution's case, and there were long-winded statements that did not highlight what the prosecution will be using against his client.

Such actions "singled out" and "discriminated" Iswaran, Mr Singh added as he called for the statements to be given in the criminal trial "like in a civil case".

Mr Singh also made the following allegations:

• The prosecution was willing to provide conditioned statements when it wanted Iswaran to stand trial for charges related to Mr Lum's case first, but reversed its stance after the defence won a bid to have a single trial instead of two
• The prosecution was not providing these statements because it could not push charges related to Mr Ong "to some indeterminate date"
• The prosecution would provide the statements only if the defence consents to the statements being admitted as evidence

THE PROSECUTION'S ARGUMENT

Disagreeing with "more than half" of what Mr Singh said, Mr Tai from the prosecution told the court that Mr Singh is "trying to get the prosecution to give more than it needs to".

He also rebutted that Mr Singh had been "paraphrasing and totally mischaracterising" the prosecution in his arguments.

Mr Tai pointed to Section 264 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which states that the prosecution is not obliged to provide conditioned statements.

In his written statements, Mr Tai said the prosecution “already conveyed” that it does not plan to use conditioned statements in its argument.

Addressing Mr Singh's request for draft statements should the witness decline to sign off on the conditioned statements, he said: "If we prepared such a document, it (would be us implying) what a witness should say. And it is wrong for us to say that this is what they should say.

"In the history of our office, I don't think we have ever given a draft that a witness did not agree to give."

Mr Tai added that the prosecution has provided “sufficient notice” for the defence, such as 1,156 pages from 66 statements recorded from Iswaran.

The defence also has access to electronic evidence such as messages between Iswaran and some witnesses such as Mr Ong and Mr Lum, as requested.

The prosecution also made available to the defence team 37 witness statements from seven prosecution witnesses that are not used in the prosecution’s case. They included:

• Twelve statements recorded from Mr Ong
• Five statements from Mr Lum
• Two statements from Mr Colin Syn Wai Hung, deputy chairman of race promoter Singapore GP
• Seven statements from Iswaran’s wife Taylor Kay Mary

Mr Tai also told the court that the prosecution has provided the defence "every single" investigation statement recorded from Mr Ong by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau.

He added that it is clear the prosecution has an arguable case to deny giving conditioned statements, because "the assistant registrar actually agreed with us". This was referring to the defence's first bid for the written statements.

Registrars usually exercise the authority and jurisdiction of a judge sitting in chambers. Assistant registrar Janice Wong had denied the defence's first bid on June 11.

Iswaran will be back in court on July 9 for a criminal case disclosure conference.