Case Details
- Citation: [2019] SGHC 48
- Case Number: Criminal Revision No 9 of 2018
- Decision Date: 01 March 2019
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Coram: See Kee Oon J
- Parties: Lee Chen Seong Jeremy and others (petitioners) v Public Prosecutor (respondent)
- Counsel for Petitioners: Adrian Wong and Ang Leong Hao (Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP)
- Counsel for Respondent: Peter Koy, Sng Yi Zhi Eugene and Ben Mathias Tan (Attorney-General’s Chambers)
- Judicial Area: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Revision of proceedings
- Statutes Referenced: Business Names Registration Act 2014; Business Names Registration Act; Companies Act; Companies Act (Cap 50); Criminal Procedure Code; Penal Code (Cap 224)
- Key Provision: Section 370(1) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“CPC”)
- Related Procedural Note: The application in Criminal Reference No 1 of 2019 was withdrawn.
- Judgment Length: 27 pages, 15,368 words
Summary
This High Court decision concerns the statutory procedure governing the continued seizure of property by law enforcement agencies during criminal investigations. The case arose under s 370(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC”), which requires a police officer who has seized property to report to a Magistrate either when the property is no longer relevant for investigations, or—if it remains relevant—to report one year after seizure so that the Magistrate may determine whether continued seizure is justified. The petitioners challenged the Magistrate’s approach to the reporting process, particularly the admission of additional material beyond what was contained in the s 370 report filed within the one-year deadline, and the prosecution’s attempt to be heard ex parte after an inter partes hearing had already begun.
Applying the revisionary jurisdiction, See Kee Oon J allowed the criminal revision and ordered that the seized property be released to the petitioners, who were the persons entitled to possession. The court held that the Magistrate erred in permitting the prosecution to supplement the s 370 report with further material in a manner that undermined the statutory safeguards built into s 370(1)(b) CPC. The decision emphasises that the one-year reporting framework is not a mere formality; it is a substantive protection against indefinite retention of property without judicial justification.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The petitioners were three individuals involved in the management of companies, particularly within the “Sourcelink” and “Canaan” groups. The police seized property—chiefly company files and various electronic devices—on 6 June 2017. The seizure was made in the course of investigations initiated by the Commercial Affairs Department of the Singapore Police Force (“CAD”) into alleged offences under the Penal Code and the Companies Act. Although three petitioners were named, the substantive investigations were directed primarily at the first petitioner, Mr Lee Chen Seong Jeremy.
On 5 April 2018, CAD wrote to Mr Lee seeking his consent to CAD’s continued seizure and retention of the seized property. Mr Lee did not consent. Through solicitors (Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP), the petitioners informed CAD on 12 April 2018 and 17 April 2018 that they did not give consent to continued seizure. This non-consent triggered the statutory reporting mechanism under s 370 CPC, requiring the prosecution to justify continued retention before a Magistrate.
On 6 June 2018, CAD filed a report to the Magistrate pursuant to s 370(1)(b) CPC, i.e., within the one-year deadline from the date of seizure. The s 370 report stated that CAD was investigating possible offences including cheating and misappropriation-related offences under the Penal Code, and offences under the Companies Act, as well as offences under the Business Names Registration Act. It also stated that investigations were ongoing. CAD later amended the s 370 report on 2 July 2018, largely to correct clerical errors, remove items wrongly included, and include items that had initially been omitted.
The inter partes hearing before the Magistrate took place on 19 July 2018. Before that hearing, the prosecution filed a fresh annex (“the Annex”) providing more detail on how the seized items were relevant to the criminal investigations. The Magistrate expressed difficulty in determining relevance based on the material before her. The prosecution then sought to be heard ex parte. The Magistrate adjourned the proceedings to allow preparation of an ex parte report and then to hear parties again on whether ex parte hearing should be permitted. The adjourned hearing was set for 17 August 2018.
Before the adjourned hearing, the prosecution filed an addendum (“the Addendum”) on 15 August 2018 on its own initiative. The Addendum was made available to the petitioners and provided further information about the offences under investigation and why the items were believed to constitute evidence and thus be relevant. At the adjourned hearing, the petitioners objected strongly, arguing that the Annex and Addendum were filed outside the one-year deadline and should not be considered. The Magistrate indicated she could have sight of the Addendum, though she clarified she had not requested ex parte information and had suggested that the prosecution consider providing information inter partes to obviate the need for an ex parte hearing.
After the Magistrate was not persuaded that even the amended s 370 report with the Annex and Addendum was sufficient, the prosecution applied to place additional information before the Magistrate on an ex parte basis. The petitioners objected on the basis that the prosecution had no right to make ex parte applications once the inter partes hearing had begun, and also that it had effectively waived any such right by indicating it was content to proceed inter partes. The Magistrate nevertheless decided she could hear the prosecution ex parte. The petitioners then filed a criminal revision to the High Court challenging the Magistrate’s decisions on admissibility of material and the propriety of ex parte hearing.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The criminal revision raised novel questions of law concerning the s 370 reporting procedure. The first key issue was whether fresh material could be admitted to supplement the s 370 report after the one-year deadline under s 370(1)(b) CPC had lapsed. The petitioners contended that s 370 imposes a strict long-stop deadline: if the Magistrate is not satisfied based on the report filed within time, the seized property must be released. In their view, allowing additional material filed out of time would defeat the statutory purpose of preventing indefinite retention.
The second key issue was whether the prosecution was entitled to be heard ex parte after the inter partes hearing before the Magistrate had already commenced. The petitioners argued that once the matter was being heard inter partes, the prosecution should not be permitted to switch to an ex parte mode to introduce further material without giving the interested persons a fair opportunity to respond. This issue implicated procedural fairness and the balance between investigative confidentiality and the rights of persons whose property is seized.
Finally, the parties agreed that the High Court, in exercising its revisionary jurisdiction, could “step into the shoes” of the Magistrate and determine whether the property seized was indeed relevant for the purposes of investigations. This meant the High Court was not limited to correcting procedural errors; it also had to assess the substantive justification for continued seizure.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
See Kee Oon J began by setting out the statutory architecture of s 370(1) CPC. The court observed that while it is commonplace for police to seize property to assist investigations, the law does not permit indefinite retention. Section 370(1) regulates how seizure is reported to a Magistrate. If the officer considers the property not relevant, a report must be made under s 370(1)(a) CPC. If the officer considers the property still relevant, a report must be made one year after seizure under s 370(1)(b) CPC. In the latter case, the Magistrate may convene a hearing, allowing interested persons to attend and make representations. Crucially, the Magistrate must be satisfied that the property is indeed relevant for investigations to justify continued seizure.
On the first issue—admission of fresh material—the court treated the one-year deadline as a substantive safeguard rather than a procedural convenience. The reasoning reflected the purpose of s 370(1)(b): to ensure that after a fixed period, the continued retention of property is subject to judicial scrutiny based on material properly put before the Magistrate within the statutory timeframe. Allowing the prosecution to supplement the report with additional material filed after the deadline would, in effect, permit the prosecution to extend the retention period without meeting the statutory conditions that trigger the Magistrate’s assessment.
The court therefore scrutinised the prosecution’s conduct in filing the Annex and Addendum. The Annex was filed before the first inter partes hearing but was characterised as a “fresh Annex” that should not be confused with the annexes within the s 370 report or amended s 370 report. The Addendum was filed after the one-year deadline and was introduced during the adjourned hearing. The petitioners’ argument was that these documents were not merely clarifications but additional content designed to bolster relevance. The High Court’s approach indicates that where the prosecution seeks to add new factual detail or new mapping of items to offences after the deadline, it risks undermining the statutory long-stop and the interested persons’ ability to contest relevance within a defined procedural window.
On the second issue—ex parte hearing—the court analysed the procedural fairness implications of allowing the prosecution to be heard ex parte after an inter partes hearing had begun. The court noted that the s 370(1)(b) framework contemplates an inter partes hearing where interested persons can make representations. While there may be circumstances where confidentiality or investigative sensitivity justifies limited ex parte material, the decision underscores that the prosecution cannot unilaterally shift to an ex parte mode once the inter partes process has started, particularly where the prosecution had indicated willingness to proceed inter partes. The Magistrate’s decision to permit ex parte supplementation, despite the petitioners’ objections, was therefore vulnerable to challenge as inconsistent with the statutory design and fairness expectations.
Finally, the High Court addressed the agreed approach to its revisionary role. By stepping into the Magistrate’s shoes, the court assessed whether the seized property was relevant for the purposes of investigations. This substantive assessment is important: even if procedural errors occurred, the court still had to decide whether continued seizure could be justified on the record. The court concluded that the prosecution’s material was insufficient to satisfy the requirement that the property was indeed relevant for ongoing investigations. As a result, the statutory justification for continued seizure failed.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court allowed the criminal revision and ordered that the seized property be released to the petitioners, who were the persons entitled to possession. The practical effect of the decision is that CAD and the prosecution could not continue retaining the seized company files and electronic devices on the basis of a s 370(1)(b) report that was not supported by sufficient timely material to satisfy the Magistrate (and, on revision, the High Court) that the property was relevant for investigations.
The decision also signals that procedural steps taken by the prosecution—such as supplementing the report with additional material after the one-year deadline and seeking ex parte hearing after an inter partes hearing has commenced—will be closely scrutinised. Where the statutory safeguards are not met, the remedy is release of the property, not further procedural indulgence.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case matters because it clarifies the legal significance of the one-year deadline in s 370(1)(b) CPC. Practitioners often treat procedural timelines as administrative; however, this decision frames the deadline as a substantive “checkpoint” that protects individuals from indefinite deprivation of property. For investigators and prosecutors, the case underscores the need to ensure that the s 370 report filed within the statutory period contains sufficient and properly framed material to enable the Magistrate to assess relevance.
For defence counsel and interested persons, the decision provides a strong basis to challenge continued seizure where the prosecution attempts to bolster relevance with late-filed material or to introduce additional information through ex parte channels after inter partes proceedings have begun. The judgment supports arguments that the statutory scheme is designed to ensure transparency and adversarial representation at the point where continued seizure is justified.
From a precedent perspective, the decision addresses “novel questions of law” on the reporting procedure, particularly regarding supplementation and ex parte hearings. It therefore has practical value for future s 370 applications and revisions, guiding both Magistrates and parties on how to conduct hearings in a manner consistent with the CPC’s protective purpose.
Legislation Referenced
- Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed), s 370(1)
- Penal Code (Cap 224)
- Companies Act (Cap 50)
- Business Names Registration Act 2014
- Business Names Registration Act
Cases Cited
- [2016] SGHC 69
- [2019] SGHC 48
Source Documents
This article analyses [2019] SGHC 48 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.