Court dismisses bids by Raymond Ng to be allowed to sue his alleged victims in ongoing criminal case

SINGAPORE: A district court on Wednesday (Oct 1) dismissed bids from Raymond Ng Kai Hoe, husband of Healing the Divide founder Iris Koh, to get declarations from the court that will effectively allow him to sue his alleged victims in an ongoing criminal case.

Ng, 52, is on a S$15,000 bail for 12 charges of cheating 12 people in relation to Vendshare, a vending machine business.

Ng came to court pulling a luggage trolley bag behind him and addressed District Judge Brenda Tan directly. He sought a declaration from the court that he was allowed to sue the alleged victims, as he said there may be concerns or restrictions in terms of his bail conditions if he attempted to sue them.

Alternatively, he asked the court to allow him to initiate civil proceedings against the alleged victims while he was still within the statute of limitations.

This would be either via substituted service so he need not serve them the papers personally, or "in a certain manner" so that he can initiate the suit, then ask for it to be stayed while his criminal proceedings are ongoing.

The judge asked him if he wanted the court to tell him that suing those parties would not breach his bail conditions, and he agreed.

He said that he intended to sue three out of the 12 alleged victims, which he referred to as "witnesses", at least "for the first round".

Deputy Public Prosecutor Jordon Li told the court that Ng was "essentially seeking declaratory relief from the court".

He cited the Rules of Court and said the criminal court is not the proper forum for such a relief.

PROSECUTOR REMINDS ABOUT BAIL CONDITIONS

Mr Li also said that he was giving Ng "more of a reminder" about his intended action.

"Firstly, as he has already noted, there are bail conditions preventing him from having contact either directly or indirectly with the victims who have lodged police reports against him," the prosecutor said.

He referred to the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act and said that several actions are defined as contempt of court.

These include intentionally interfering by intimidation or hindering another person's access to or ability to appear in court, knowing that this person is a witness in ongoing court proceedings, or intentionally interfering with or obstructing the administration of justice.

"Given the provisions that I have just read out, and the bail conditions, we remind Mr Ng that he really ought to take his own legal advice independently on his intended course," said Mr Li.

He added that he was not providing any legal advice, or stating any position on Ng's intended course of action, but that this was "just a reminder".

In response, Ng objected to the characterisation "of these witnesses as victims".

"Mr Jordon Li is pre-judging the matter, OK. They are only victims if I am convicted. I am presently not convicted yet," he said.

He then said that as far as he could remember, the presiding judge in a pre-trial conference did not say he could not sue.

"But they did not say that I can sue either," said Ng. "Their position was a non-position. That's why I need declaratory relief."

He said he was not familiar as to whether it was within the jurisdiction of the district court to provide the declaration or not, but said he took it that he would "still need a ruling".

He invited the judge to state the reason if she did not approve it, but said "I do need a ruling today".

When asked if he had any case authorities to back up his application, Ng said: "Your honour, I'm not a lawyer."

He then asked for a recess of 15 minutes to do some checks, which the judge did not grant, saying he should have come prepared.

Ng then stood where he was checking his phone for several minutes.

He then told the judge that he "just did a basic research" and said that "there is not even a prima facie ground that suing a victim for a legitimate claim even breaches the bail conditions".

He said "there was no law to prevent me from suing anyway".

"But Mr Li did warn me," continued Ng. "I don't know whether he's warning or reminding. I don't know what's the legal difference between warning or reminding."

Judge Tan said in her ruling that Ng was seeking certain declarations from the court, but was "unable to point to any supporting legal provision or case law" to confirm that the court had the power or jurisdiction to do so.

"The prosecution, on the other hand, has highlighted the Rules of Court, which make it clear that the district judge sitting in a criminal court does not have the jurisdiction to give the declarations sought by Mr Ng," said the judge.

"I will also add that it is for Mr Ng to seek his own legal advice as to whether his intended course of action would constitute a breach of his bail conditions. It is also not for the court to advise him or endorse his alternative course of action," said Judge Tan, dismissing Ng's applications.

Ng's criminal case is set for a pre-trial conference later this month.

If found guilty of cheating, Ng could be jailed for up to 10 years and fined for each charge.