SINGAPORE - With his trial due to begin in a week’s time, former transport minister S. Iswaran on Sept 3 failed in his third attempt to obtain conditioned statements of every prosecution witness.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Iswaran’s latest bid after hearing arguments from his lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, and without requiring the prosecution to respond.
A conditioned statement is a mode of giving evidence in a written statement, in lieu of oral testimony.
Iswaran’s first attempt was dismissed on June 11 by an assistant registrar. A High Court judge dismissed the second attempt on July 19.
On Sept 3, the 62-year-old sought a criminal reference – an application asking Singapore’s top court to answer a question of law of public interest.
He questioned whether witness statements should be included as part of the prosecution’s disclosure obligations, and whether the court has the power to order the prosecution to do so.
Under the law, an accused person who wants to file a criminal reference would first need to apply to the Court of Appeal for permission to do so.
It is for the court to decide whether the question is of sufficient public interest to be worth answering.
The court, comprising Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and justices Woo Bih Li and Steven Chong, said the two questions raised were not questions of law of public interest.
Iswaran faces a total of 35 charges, two of which are for corruption involving about $166,000.
Another 32 counts are for obtaining items worth more than $237,000 as a public servant, while one is for obstructing the course of justice.
The charges relate to his dealings with hotel and property tycoon Ong Beng Seng, and mainboard-listed Lum Chang Holdings’ managing director David Lum.
The defence’s first attempt for a court order that the prosecution should provide conditioned statements was dismissed on June 11 by an assistant registrar.
Under the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), the prosecution must disclose witness statements “that are intended by the prosecution to be admitted at the trial”.
The defence contended that the prosecution is required to provide conditioned statements for every witness that it intends to call at the trial.
The prosecution argued that the law requires it to provide only the conditioned statements that it intends to admit at the trial.
The prosecution said it does not intend to admit any conditioned statements at Iswaran’s trial. No such statements have been recorded, and thus none was provided to the defence.
The defence then filed an application, known as a criminal revision, for a High Court judge to review the assistant registrar’s decision.
On July 19, Justice Vincent Hoong dismissed this second attempt.
The judge said the words of the provision under the CPC are “clear and unambiguous”.
Justice Hoong said the prosecution need to disclose only the statements of witnesses that it intends to admit at the trial, and not of every witness the prosecution intends to call.
