SINGAPORE, July 19 — Former transport minister S Iswaran’s bid to get access to written statements by witnesses who are set to testify in his corruption trial has been denied again.
High Court Judge Vincent Hoong today ruled against ordering the prosecution to hand over conditioned statements from its 56 witnesses.
Conditioned statements are written evidence in any criminal proceeding that holds the same effect as oral evidence, if they satisfy certain conditions under the Criminal Procedure Code, including being signed by the person who made it.
In delivering his judgement, Justice Hoong said that Section 214(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code, relating to what the contents of the prosecution’s case must contain, does not oblige the prosecution to file and serve statements of every witness it intends to call at trial.
There is also “nothing in the wording” of that section that requires the prosecution to provide draft statements of witnesses who do not want to sign off on conditioned statements, Justice Hoong added.
Addressing the defence’s alternative argument that failing to disclose the requested conditioned statements would be an “abuse” of court process or cause “injustice”, the judge said that he was “unable to accept” Iswaran’s submission that there has been an abuse of process or “serious injustice”.
Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, who leads Iswaran’s team of lawyers, had sought written conditioned statements from all 56 witnesses at a criminal revision on July 5.
If the witness declined to sign off on the document, Singh had asked that the prosecution provide the drafts of these statements.
This was the second time the defendant has asked for these statements. The first bid was denied by an assistant registrar on June 11. Registrars usually exercise the authority and jurisdiction of a judge sitting in chambers.
On Friday, Justice Hoong said that the charges in Iswaran’s case sufficiently set out the particulars of the alleged offences, and the list of exhibits provide notice of the facts and evidence that the prosecution will lead with at trial.
“The relevance of many of the listed exhibits is self-evident from their description, including those related to (motor-racing event) Formula One and other ticketed events and experiences, which would correlate to the various charges,” he added.
Included in the prosecution’s case are also Iswaran’s 66 statements, totalling 1,156 pages, that contain emails, messages, Formula One complimentary request forms and other relevant documents that “clearly informs” the defence what the prosecution intends to rely on for evidence at trial.
“I am satisfied that the assistant registrar’s decision in the first instance was not in error. There is also no suggestion of any procedural irregularity in the proceedings below,” Justice Hoong concluded.
About the case
Iswaran, 62, is accused of alleged bribery and corruption involving property tycoon Ong Beng Seng and construction company boss Lum Kok Seng.
Most of the 35 charges against him relate to obtaining valuables as a public servant. He also faces two charges of corruption and one charge of obstructing justice.
He was first handed 27 charges on Jan 18, before another eight charges were brought against him in March.
The former transport minister has pleaded not guilty to all charges and has stated his intent to contest them.
In May, Iswaran won his bid to have his corruption charges heard in one trial instead of two as proposed by the prosecution.
His lawyers argued then that the former minister was dealing with “very close and dear friends” in the two sets of charges, relating to Ong and Lum.
In a full day’s hearing on July 5, Singh claimed that the prosecution was “lengthening the trial” by “keeping their cards close to their chest” in his bid to obtain the statements from the prosecution’s 56 witnesses.
By not providing these written statements, he said that the prosecution would be able to “avoid an adverse inference and my ability to object to their evidence”.
His client was being “singled out” and “discriminated”, Singh added as he called for the statements to be provided in Iswaran’s criminal trial “like in a civil case”.
Disagreeing with “more than half” of what Singh said, Deputy Attorney-General Tai Wei Shyong, responding on behalf of the prosecution, said then that Singh was “trying to get the prosecution to give more than it needs to”.
He added that Singh had been “paraphrasing and totally mischaracterising” the prosecution in his arguments.
Tai highlighted Section 264 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which states that the prosecution is not obliged to provide conditioned statements.
He also said that the prosecution had “already conveyed” that it does not plan to use conditioned statements in its argument in his written statements.
As for Singh’s request for draft statements should the witness decline to sign off on the conditioned statements, Tai said that preparing such a document would be tantamount to the prosecution implying what a witness should say, which would be wrong.
Iswaran’s case is set to go on trial at the High Court in August. — TODAY
