SINGAPORE, Sept 3 — Former Singapore transport minister S. Iswaran on Tuesday (September 3) faced a setback in his legal battle as he failed in his third attempt to compel the prosecution to disclose all witness statements to his defence team.

Iswaran, 62, sought permission to bring two questions of law before the Court of Appeal, specifically whether the prosecution must include all facts and evidence supporting the charges in the form of witness statements, and whether the court can order the prosecution to do so, according to a report published in Channel News Asia today.

This latest bid followed two previous unsuccessful attempts to obtain these statements, both of which were dismissed by an assistant registrar and a High Court judge.

Iswaran faces 35 charges, including 32 counts of obtaining valuables as a public servant, two counts of corruption, and one count of obstructing justice.

These charges relate to his interactions with property tycoon Ong Beng Seng and Lum Kok Seng, managing director of Lum Chang Holdings.

Iswaran’s trial is set to commence next week.

When approached, one of his lawyers, Navin Thevar, declined to comment on whether the trial would proceed as scheduled on September 10.

The defence team, led by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh from Davinder Singh Chambers, argued that under Section 214(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), the prosecution is required to provide all forms of witness statements, including draft statements, to the defence.

However, the prosecution interprets this section differently, asserting that only conditioned statements intended to be admitted at trial need to be disclosed.

Conditioned statements are written statements that are admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings.

The appeal hearing on Tuesday took place in a packed courtroom before Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Justices Woo Bih Li and Steven Chong.

Chief Justice Menon and Justice Chong expressed difficulty in understanding Singh’s argument that draft statements should be included.

Justice Chong questioned the admissibility of draft statements, while Chief Justice Menon pointed out that the language of the statute does not support such an interpretation.

He stated that Singh’s argument seemed to be asking the court to "craft a discovery regime” that Parliament had not intended when they established the current criminal disclosure process.

Singh countered by referring to the previous legal provisions governing committal hearings, which allowed for broader access to prosecution evidence.

He argued that his client now has fewer rights under the current regime.

However, Justice Chong dismissed this argument as unrealistic, noting that the prosecution would disadvantage itself if it withheld statements it intended to rely on at trial.

Chief Justice Menon concluded by saying that the statutory language of Section 214(1)(d) constrains what the court can order and does not support the broader scope of discovery Singh was advocating.

Iswaran resigned from his government positions two days before being charged in court in January, following a leave of absence during the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau’s investigation.

If convicted, Iswaran faces severe penalties, including up to seven years in prison, fines, or both, depending on the specific charges.