Iswaran’s lawyers fail in bid to get written witness statements from prosecution
The law is ‘clear’ and ‘unambiguous’ that the prosecution is not obligated to provide the statements, says Justice Vincent Hoong
SINGAPORE’S High Court has denied former transport minister S Iswaran’s request for the prosecution to hand over certain written statements from witnesses set to take the stand in the upcoming graft trial.
Justice Vincent Hoong delivered his judgment on Friday (Jul 19), two weeks after the court heard arguments from both sides on the matter.
Iswaran’s lawyer Davinder Singh had argued that the prosecution should produce these “conditioned statements” as part of its obligation under Section 214(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code to disclose relevant evidence to the other party before trial, in a process known as pre-trial discovery.
Meanwhile, Deputy Attorney-General Tai Wei Shyong, representing the prosecution, rejected the defence’s interpretation of the law and argued that under a plain reading, the prosecution needs only to provide conditioned statements if it intends to admit them in the trial.
At the Friday morning hearing, Justice Hoong said the words of Section 214(1)(d) are “clear and unambiguous”, and that extraneous material presented by the defence does not assist its interpretation of the law. Nothing in the wording of the law requires the prosecution to file and serve the statements of every witness, or to file draft statements for those who are not willing to provide one, said the judge.
A plain reading of the law states that the prosecution is required to produce conditioned statements only if it intends to admit them during the trial. Conversely, said Hoong, if the prosecution does not intend to admit such statements at trial, it is not required to file them as part of its case.
The law also cannot be construed as meaning that the prosecution must obtain statements from all the witnesses that it intends to call to give evidence at the trial. It would be an “impermissible extension of the language” to read Section 214(1)(d) as referring to statements that the prosecution may intend to admit regardless of intention, he said.
Assistant Registrar Janice Wong’s position was thus “not an error”, he said.
There is also no basis for the court to invoke its powers to compel the prosecution to provide the conditioned statements or any draft statements, said the judge.
SEE ALSO
“With respect, I have considerable difficulty accepting that the written or draft statements of witnesses should be included in the case for the prosecution, for the purpose of revealing or distilling the prosecution’s case at the trial.”
There is also no basis for invoking the court’s power to compel the prosecution to provide information on its overall case theory and trial strategies,” he added.
The prosecution has also provided sufficient information to show the “factual premise of the charges against him”, including a list of witnesses and their roles, and a list of exhibits with descriptions of what they were.
Iswaran’s lawyers have therefore not demonstrated the injustice that he will suffer from not getting the conditioned statements, said the judge.
Justice Hoong’s decision marks the second time Singh has failed to obtain the witness statements from the prosecution. His first attempt in June was denied at a hearing that was closed to the public.
The trial is expected to start on Aug 13, barring further applications or appeals.
What the case is about
Iswaran faces 35 charges, including two counts of corruption. He is accused of obtaining more than S$403,000 worth of items as a public servant.
The charges relate to his dealings with billionaire hotel and property tycoon Ong Beng Seng, as well as the managing director of Singapore-listed Lum Chang Holdings David Lum.
Iswaran was initially slapped with 27 charges relating to his dealings with Ong in January, then handed a fresh set of eight charges relating to his dealings with Lum on Mar 25.
In May, the High Court granted Iswaran’s application to have a single trial for all criminal charges against him, in contrast to the prosecution’s call for separate trials for his dealings with the two businessmen.
Decoding Asia newsletter: your guide to navigating Asia in a new global order. Sign up here to get Decoding Asia newsletter. Delivered to your inbox. Free.
Copyright SPH Media. All rights reserved.
