Case Details
- Citation: [2019] SGHC 76
- Title: Soh Tian Khoon Raymond v Public Prosecutor
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date of Decision: 15 March 2019
- Case Number: Criminal Motion No 1 of 2019
- Tribunal/Coram: High Court; Aedit Abdullah J
- Judges: Aedit Abdullah J
- Applicant/Accused: Soh Tian Khoon Raymond
- Respondent: Public Prosecutor
- Parties (as styled): Raymond Soh Tian Khoon — Public Prosecutor
- Counsel for Applicant: Nathan Edmund (Tan & Pillai)
- Counsel for Respondent: Grace Goh Chioa Wei and Christopher Ong (Attorney-General’s Chambers)
- Legal Areas: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Disclosure; Evidence — Witnesses
- Statutes Referenced: Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“CPC”); Customs Act (Cap 70, 2004 Rev Ed)
- Key Statutory Provision Discussed: s 283 CPC
- Customs Act Charges: s 128I(1)(b) of the Customs Act (dealing with duty-unpaid cigarettes)
- Procedural Posture: Criminal motion filed during pending State Courts trial; verdict adjourned pending outcome
- Judgment Length: 4 pages; 1,572 words (as stated in metadata)
- Cases Cited (metadata): [2019] SGHC 76 (self-citation); Ng Chye Huey v Public Prosecutor [2007] 2 SLR(R) 106; Ang Poh Chuan v Public Prosecutor [1995] 3 SLR(R) 929
Summary
Soh Tian Khoon Raymond v Public Prosecutor [2019] SGHC 76 concerned a criminal motion brought in the High Court during the pendency of a trial in the State Courts. The applicant, Soh Tian Khoon Raymond, faced charges under the Customs Act relating to dealing with duty-unpaid cigarettes. After the trial concluded but before the verdict was delivered, the applicant sought (i) disclosure of a “delivery list” and (ii) the recall of certain witnesses for cross-examination under s 283 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). The High Court dismissed the application insofar as it sought the recall of witnesses.
Although the High Court accepted that it had jurisdiction to consider the motion in the circumstances, it emphasised that criminal motions should generally not be filed while matters remain pending at first instance unless there are very strong countervailing reasons. Substantively, the court was not persuaded that there was any reason to order recall. The court’s reasoning turned on the relevance and utility of the proposed evidence and, importantly, on the fact that the prosecution’s case against the applicant was not directed at the issue the “delivery list” was said to establish. The court also made practical observations about how criminal trial determinations should be made in open court, consistent with the spirit of the CPC.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The applicant stood trial in the State Courts before a District Judge for two charges under s 128I(1)(b) of the Customs Act. The charges related to dealing with duty-unpaid cigarettes. The trial was heard over multiple dates: from 27 to 29 March 2018, and again on 29 and 30 August 2018. After the trial concluded, the District Judge directed the parties to file closing and reply submissions by specified deadlines in October and November 2018.
During the trial, the prosecution called Ng Seng Kiong (“Ng”) as a witness. Ng was also the applicant’s co-accused, and he had previously pleaded guilty in relation to related matters. In his own plead-guilty mention on 23 June 2017, Ng had admitted to having referred to a “delivery list” of customers. Ng subsequently testified in the applicant’s trial on 27 March 2018. After serving his sentence, Ng left Singapore on 4 May 2018, meaning that any recall would require procedural steps to bring him back or otherwise secure his attendance.
On 9 November 2018, the applicant’s counsel, Mr Nathan, informed the District Judge in chambers that the prosecution had withheld a material document during the trial: the “delivery list”. Counsel’s position was that the contents of the “delivery list” would show that the applicant was not the purchaser of the duty-unpaid cigarettes that were the subject of the Customs Act charges. Mr Nathan indicated that he intended to file a criminal motion for disclosure. The District Judge granted an adjournment to allow the motion to be filed.
Subsequently, on 21 November 2018, Mr Nathan wrote to the State Courts inviting the District Judge to invoke an “inherent discretion” to order the prosecution to produce the “delivery list”, and to recall Ng for cross-examination. On 27 November 2018, the District Judge met parties in chambers and indicated that the letter did not provide reasons to recall Ng, and that the court had no power to compel the prosecution to disclose the evidence in question. The District Judge therefore stated that there would be no recall of Ng. Mr Nathan agreed to file a criminal motion, and the applicant did so on 2 January 2019. On 16 January 2019, the District Judge postponed the verdict pending the outcome of the High Court application.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The first legal issue was jurisdictional and procedural: whether the High Court could entertain the criminal motion while the State Courts trial was still ongoing and the verdict had not yet been delivered. The High Court had to consider whether it had jurisdiction to review or address the matters arising from the first instance court’s handling of the disclosure and recall questions, and whether the motion was properly before it.
The second issue concerned the substantive requirements for recalling witnesses under s 283 of the CPC. The applicant sought to recall Ng and also Faizal Ahamed, the investigating officer in charge of Ng’s case who drafted the statement of facts that Ng had pleaded guilty to. The applicant’s argument was that the “delivery list” would be admissible, credible, and relevant, and would corroborate the defence that the applicant was not the purchaser of the duty-unpaid cigarettes. The applicant further contended that disclosure of the “delivery list” required the recall of these witnesses to allow cross-examination.
The third issue was evidential and relevance-based. The prosecution resisted disclosure and recall, arguing that the “delivery list” was not a formal list of buyers or orders; rather, it consisted of various WeChat messages. The prosecution maintained that these messages were prima facie inadmissible as hearsay, and even if an exception applied, they were incomplete and therefore not credible. The prosecution also argued that the messages were not relevant to the prosecution’s case against the applicant because the prosecution’s theory was that the applicant coordinated deliveries, whereas Ng’s role was to perform deliveries and collect payments.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
On jurisdiction, the High Court was persuaded that it could consider the application notwithstanding the pending proceedings in the State Courts. The court noted that there had already been a determination by the first instance court relevant to the High Court’s jurisdiction. Specifically, on 27 November 2018, the District Judge had decided not to compel disclosure of the “delivery list” and not to recall Ng. The High Court observed that the position might have been different if the District Judge had declined to make a decision in the proceedings below, because then the High Court would be confronted with a different procedural posture.
The court also addressed, but did not definitively decide, whether the criminal motion was an attempt to invoke the High Court’s revisionary or supervisory jurisdiction. The parties did not develop full arguments on this point, and the prosecution did not raise jurisdictional objections. The High Court nevertheless cautioned that revisionary jurisdiction is “sparingly exercised” and not easily invoked. It referenced the need for serious injustice and something “palpably wrong” that strikes at the basis of judicial power by the court below, citing Ng Chye Huey v Public Prosecutor [2007] 2 SLR(R) 106 at [73]–[75] and Ang Poh Chuan v Public Prosecutor [1995] 3 SLR(R) 929 at [13] and [17].
Beyond jurisdiction, the High Court issued a procedural admonition. It strongly discouraged criminal motions being filed when matters are pending at first instance unless there are very strong countervailing reasons. The court reasoned that evidential shortcomings should generally be addressed through the appeal process. If additional evidence is later shown to be necessary, the appellate court can consider remittal or allowing new evidence. This reflects a broader concern about efficiency and the orderly conduct of criminal trials, and it echoes the Court of Appeal’s concerns in Ng Chye Huey at [68]–[74].
In the present case, however, the High Court did not fault counsel for filing the motion. The court accepted counsel’s understanding that the District Judge had in fact declined to make a decision on whether the prosecution should disclose the “delivery list”. It also took into account that the applicant had been remanded for a substantial period and that the matter should proceed expeditiously. The court therefore proceeded to decide the substantive application rather than leaving the issue entirely to later appellate processes.
On the substantive question of recall, the High Court focused on the purpose for which the “delivery list” was said to be relevant. The applicant’s case was that the “delivery list” would prove he was not the purchaser of the duty-unpaid cigarettes. The prosecution did not dispute that this was the issue the “delivery list” purported to address. However, the prosecution’s case against the applicant was not directed at whether the applicant was the purchaser. Instead, the prosecution’s theory was that the applicant coordinated deliveries of duty-unpaid cigarettes. The court therefore treated the “delivery list” as not directly undermining the prosecution’s case as framed at trial.
Crucially, the High Court noted that the parties agreed to convey their respective positions to the trial court, which settled the disclosure issue between them. In other words, the disclosure question did not remain contested in the way the recall application suggested. Given that the prosecution’s case was about coordination rather than purchase, and given the procedural settlement of disclosure between the parties, the High Court was not persuaded that there was any reason to order recall of witnesses. The court concluded that the order sought for recall should not be granted.
Finally, the High Court made an important procedural observation about how criminal trial determinations should be made. It stated that determinations in criminal trials should be made in open court, consistent with the spirit and intent of the CPC. While it is acceptable for a judge to see parties in chambers for administrative or logistical matters (such as pre-trial conferences and arguments), pronouncements or decisions should be made in open court in the presence of the accused person. This observation is not merely rhetorical; it underscores the transparency and fairness values embedded in criminal procedure.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court dismissed the criminal motion as regards the recall of the witnesses. The practical effect was that Ng and Faizal Ahamed would not be recalled for cross-examination under s 283 of the CPC in relation to the “delivery list” issue.
The court left it to the parties to proceed with the trial and directed that the prosecution convey its position to the trial court that it was undisputed between the parties that the applicant was not the purchaser of the duty-unpaid cigarettes. This meant that the trial could continue without the additional witness recall sought by the applicant.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This decision is useful for practitioners because it illustrates how the High Court approaches criminal motions filed during ongoing first instance proceedings. While the court accepted jurisdiction in the particular circumstances, it strongly discouraged such motions absent very strong countervailing reasons. For defence counsel, this signals that the default expectation is that evidential disputes and procedural complaints should be handled within the trial process and, if necessary, raised on appeal rather than through interlocutory criminal motions that risk fragmenting the trial.
Substantively, the case demonstrates that recall under s 283 of the CPC is not granted merely because a document exists or because a defence wishes to challenge credibility. The court’s focus was on relevance to the prosecution’s case theory and on whether the proposed evidence would actually assist the defence in contesting the elements the prosecution needed to prove. Even if the “delivery list” could bear on purchase, it did not matter if the prosecution’s case against the applicant was not premised on purchase. This relevance-based approach is likely to guide future applications for recall and related disclosure-driven strategies.
Finally, the court’s comments on open court determinations provide an additional procedural reminder. Where decisions are made in chambers, parties should be alert to whether the decision is a substantive pronouncement affecting the accused’s rights. The court’s emphasis on open court proceedings aligns with broader principles of transparency and procedural fairness in criminal adjudication.
Legislation Referenced
- Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) — s 283 (recall of witnesses)
- Customs Act (Cap 70, 2004 Rev Ed) — s 128I(1)(b) (dealing with duty-unpaid cigarettes)
Cases Cited
- Ng Chye Huey v Public Prosecutor [2007] 2 SLR(R) 106
- Ang Poh Chuan v Public Prosecutor [1995] 3 SLR(R) 929
Source Documents
This article analyses [2019] SGHC 76 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.