Anwar Siraj v Attorney-General: Application for Mandatory Orders Against Police and Senior District Judge Dismissed
In Anwar Siraj and another v Attorney-General, the High Court of Singapore dismissed Mr. Anwar Siraj and Ms. Khoo Cheng Neo Norma's application for leave to apply for various mandatory orders against the police and the Senior District Judge. The court, presided over by Quentin Loh JC, found no arguable case or reasonable suspicion to grant the public law remedy sought, citing the plaintiffs' misconceived views on exhibit custody during arbitration and the absence of evidence supporting their claims of conspiracy and misconduct. The application was dismissed on 8 February 2010.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court dismissed Anwar Siraj's application for mandatory orders against the police and a Senior District Judge, finding no arguable case.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anwar Siraj | Plaintiff | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Khoo Cheng Neo Norma | Plaintiff | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed | Won | Low Siew Ling, Tan En En |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Quentin Loh | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Low Siew Ling | Attorney-General Chambers |
| Tan En En | Attorney-General Chambers |
4. Facts
- Plaintiffs sought mandatory orders against the police and a Senior District Judge.
- The application arose from a dispute over exhibits at an arbitration preliminary meeting.
- Plaintiffs refused to remove exhibits after the preliminary hearing.
- The Arbitrator returned the exhibits to the Plaintiffs' property.
- Plaintiffs filed police reports alleging harassment and illegal dumping.
- Police concluded no criminal offences were disclosed.
- Plaintiffs lodged Magistrate's complaints, alleging various offences.
- There were clerical errors and delays in the Subordinate Courts' handling of the complaints.
5. Formal Citations
- Anwar Siraj and another v Attorney-General, Originating Summons No 1213 of 2009, [2010] SGHC 36
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Preliminary hearing held at Arbitrator’s office | |
| Plaintiffs filed two police reports against the Arbitrator’s secretary and four males | |
| Arbitrator employed contractor to take the exhibits and unload them in front of the Plaintiffs’ house | |
| Siraj wrote to the Commissioner of Police querying the classification of his complaints | |
| Police replied that they had referred the alleged illegal dumping to the National Environment Agency | |
| Siraj wrote again to the Commissioner of Police questioning the lack of action by the police | |
| Siraj lodged 3 Magistrate’s complaints | |
| Magistrate’s Courts sent a minute to the police to investigate into the complaints | |
| Police submitted a joint investigation report with the conclusion that no offences were disclosed | |
| Magistrate’s Courts wrote to Siraj informing him to report at the Complaints Counter, Crime Registry on 21 February 2005 | |
| Unsuccessful criminal mediation was conducted with Siraj and the Arbitrator | |
| Unsuccessful criminal mediation was conducted with Siraj and the Arbitrator | |
| Subordinate Courts wrote to the Plaintiffs to inform them that their complaint was referred to the Bedok Police Division HQ for investigation | |
| Police submitted the same investigation report in reply | |
| Subordinate Courts asked the police to submit their report | |
| Police responded that the investigation for the third Magistrate’s Complaint was already submitted on 19 September 2005 | |
| Siraj made another police report for the purpose of sending representations to the Attorney-General | |
| Subordinate Courts wrote to the Plaintiffs asking whether they wished to proceed with his complaints | |
| Subordinate Courts proceeded to close the files and informed the Plaintiffs of this | |
| Application for leave was heard and dismissed | |
| Plaintiffs filed their appeal | |
| Full grounds for dismissing the Plaintiffs’ application for leave were set out |
7. Legal Issues
- Application for Mandatory Orders
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application for mandatory orders, finding no arguable case or reasonable suspicion.
- Category: Procedural
- Judicial Review of Police Investigation
- Outcome: The court held that it would not interfere with police investigations or instruct law enforcement agencies on how to do their jobs.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Mandatory Orders against the Police
- Mandatory Orders against the Senior District Judge
9. Cause of Actions
- Application for Mandatory Orders
10. Practice Areas
- Public Law
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Service Commission v Lai Swee Lin Linda | High Court | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 133 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court's role under an O 53, r 1 application is to filter out groundless or hopeless cases at an early stage. |
| Chan Hiang Leng Colin v Minister for Information and the Arts | High Court | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR(R) 294 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the applicant has to show an arguable or prima facie case of reasonable suspicion in favour of granting the public law remedy sought. |
| Anwar Siraj and Another v Ting Kang Chung John | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] SGCA 61 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that courts are slow to grant mandatory orders against the police, and will not instruct law enforcement agencies on how to do their jobs. |
| R v Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall, ex p Central Electricity Generating Board | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1982] QB 458 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the court would not grant orders to the police as to how the police should carry out their duties. |
| PP v Quek Chin Chuan | High Court | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 138 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the courts do not have the power to carry out the same functions as the Public Prosecutor or the police, as it would amount to an unacceptable interference in executive direction by the judiciary. |
| Emperor v Khwaja Nazir Ahmad | Privy Council | Yes | [1945] AIR 18 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the judiciary should not interfere with the police in matters which are within their province and into which the law imposes upon them the duty of enquiry. |
| R v Industrial Court and others, ex parte A.S.S.E.T. | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1965] 1 QB 377 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a mandatory order will not be granted against an arbitral tribunal on the grounds that the tribunal was not performing a public duty. |
| R v Barnet Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Cantor | High Court of Justice | Yes | [1998] 2 All ER 333 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a mandatory order will not be granted against a justices’ clerk to make restitution of money owing because there was no public law obligation requiring the justices’ clerk to make repayment of the money to a third party. |
| Anwar Siraj and Another v Ting Kang Chung John | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 71 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a judge has no power to order the police to conduct an investigation or to speed up that process. |
| Anwar Siraj and Another v Ting Kang Chung John | High Court | Yes | [2010] SGHC 20 | Singapore | Cited to highlight the plaintiffs' repeated, misconceived applications and their unfounded claims of conspiracy. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 53 Rule 1, Rules of Court |
| Order 56 Rule 2, Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Environmental Public Health Act, (Cap 95, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Mandatory Orders
- Judicial Review
- Police Investigation
- Arbitration Exhibits
- Magistrate's Complaints
- Clerical Errors
- Public Duty
15.2 Keywords
- Mandatory Orders
- Police
- Judicial Review
- Arbitration
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Administrative Law
- Police Powers
- Arbitration
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Judicial Review
- Administrative Law