SINGAPORE: A High Court judge on Friday (19 July) dismissed a bid by former transport minister S Iswaran to compel the prosecution to hand over statements from all its witnesses. Iswaran’s legal team, led by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, had previously lost a similar attempt in a private hearing in June, making this their second attempt in a criminal revision heard on 5 July.
Justice Vincent Hoong ruled that there was no basis in the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) to support the defence’s claim that the prosecution is required to disclose all conditioned statements of its witnesses or draft statements of witnesses who do not wish to sign off on conditioned statements.
Justice Hoong stated, “The plain meaning of these words, read together, is that the Prosecution is only required to include as part of the Case for the Prosecution such ‘statements of the witnesses under section 264’ that it intends to admit at the trial”.
He also rejected the defence’s argument that there had been an abuse of process or serious injustice by the prosecution.
This development comes about a month before Iswaran’s trial in the High Court, set to begin on 13 August. Corruption cases are typically heard in the State Courts, but the prosecution successfully applied for this case to be heard in the High Court in March.
Iswaran, 62, faces a total of 35 charges: 32 counts of obtaining valuables as a public servant, two counts of corruption, and one of obstructing justice.
These charges are related to his interactions with property tycoon Ong Beng Seng, who brought the F1 race to Singapore, and Lum Kok Seng, the managing director of Singapore-listed Lum Chang Holdings.
Neither Ong nor Lum have been charged, with the Attorney-General’s Chambers stating that a decision regarding their cases will be made after Iswaran’s trial.
During the criminal revision hearing, Mr Singh requested the prosecution to provide all conditioned statements – signed written statements used as evidence in court – to the defence.
Alternatively, he asked for draft statements or all written statements from the prosecution witnesses. He alleged that Iswaran was being singled out and discriminated against.
Mr Singh also claimed that the prosecution initially agreed to provide the defence with conditioned statements when it intended to proceed with Mr Lum’s case first. However, after the defence’s successful application for all charges to be heard together in one trial, the prosecution, for the first time, asserted that they were not obligated to provide these statements.
The prosecution, led by Deputy Attorney-General and Senior Counsel Tai Wei Shyong, countered that the defence was mischaracterising the prosecution’s position and that the defence had changed its stance.
Iswaran resigned from his government positions two days before being charged in court in January. Prior to this, he was placed on a leave of absence pending the investigation by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau and was denied access to any official resources and government buildings.
The charges Iswaran faces include 32 counts under Section 165 of the Penal Code for obtaining valuable items as a public servant, two counts of corruption under Section 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and one count of obstructing justice under Section 7 of the same act.
If convicted under Section 165, Iswaran could be jailed for up to two years, fined, or both, for each charge. Conviction under Section 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act carries a potential punishment of up to five years in prison, a fine of up to S$100,000, or both. For obstructing justice under Section 7, the penalty could be up to seven years in prison, a fine of up to S$100,000, or both.