Iswaran’s lawyers, prosecution clash over request for written statements from trial witnesses
His lawyers are seeking the statements to prepare his defence; the prosecution says it’s not obliged to give them
FORMER transport minister S Iswaran’s lawyers are contesting the court’s denial of their request for certain written statements from witnesses set to take the stand in the upcoming graft trial.
In an application to the High Court on Friday (Jul 5), Iswaran’s lawyer Davinder Singh argued that the prosecution should produce these “conditioned statements” as part of its obligation under Section 214(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) to disclose relevant evidence to the other party before the trial. This process is known as pre-trial discovery.
Conditioned statements are written statements which can be admitted as evidence if certain conditions are fulfilled, often to expedite trial proceedings.
Pre-trial discovery is required for civil cases. On Friday, Singh argued that Parliament, when amending the CPC in 2010, had also sought to make it a requirement for criminal cases tried in the High Court, in the interest of greater transparency.
“All I am seeking is that discovery,” said the lawyer. This could be through conditioned statements, or draft statements by the prosecution if conditioned statements cannot be obtained from the witnesses, he added.
Singh had in June asked for the witness statements, but his request was dismissed in a hearing that was closed to the public. Friday’s hearing was his second attempt to obtain these statements, this time through a criminal revision application.
BT in your inbox
Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.
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 managing director of Singapore-listed Lum Chang Holdings David Lum.
The defence’s case
On Friday, Singh suggested that in April, the prosecution had been prepared to provide the conditioned statements in a criminal case disclosure conference. But, he argued, the prosecution changed its mind after losing its bid in May to separate the charges relating to Ong and Lum into two trials.
“An inference that can be drawn is that not having succeeded in pushing the Ong charges away to some indeterminate date… they have now come up with this idea of, ‘No, we are not going to come up with conditioned statements, but we will adduce oral evidence’,” said the lawyer.
This will have the “same effect” as having the Lum charges tried first and Ong later, he added.
He also argued that providing the conditioned statements does not mean that the prosecution is committed to admitting these as evidence.
“The whole point of pre-trial discovery is to enable us to respond in a fashion so that Your Honour will know what are the issues that are live in the case,” he said to the judge.
While the prosecution has handed over some materials, these are insufficient for the defence to prepare its argument, he added.
For instance, the prosecution has provided a list of exhibits, but not the documents themselves, he noted. “How does anyone work out what they are about?”
The prosecution responds
Deputy Attorney-General Tai Wei Shyong, representing the prosecution, rejected the suggestion that the prosecution is trying to take the defence by surprise. “We categorically say that there is no such intention.”
He argued that the issue at hand is how Section 214(1)(d) of the CPC should be interpreted, and that under a plain reading, the prosecution only needs to provide conditioned statements if it intends to admit them in the trial.
Tai argued that the defence’s interpretation of the law is not supported by “any parliamentary debate or wording in the statute past or present”.
He noted that assistant registrar Janice Wong had agreed so in her decision during the closed-door hearing in June, and dismissed the defence’s application on this basis.
Tai said the prosecution has fully complied with its obligations and given the defence “more than enough” to prepare its case.
This includes a list of 56 witnesses and their roles; a list of 222 exhibits that the prosecution intends to rely on; as well as 1,156 pages worth of emails, messages and other “relevant documentary evidence” such as Formula One complimentary request forms.
The prosecution has also provided statements recorded by officers from the Corrupt Practices Investigations Bureau, including statements from Ong, Lum, Singapore GP deputy chairman Colin Syn and Iswaran’s wife Taylor Kay Mary.
If there is a lack of clarity in what was provided, then the defence is at liberty to ask for more clarification, Tai added.
Justice Vincent Hoong adjourned court on Friday afternoon and will give his judgement at a later date.
Copyright SPH Media. All rights reserved.
