Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario: Application for Investigation of Deputy Public Prosecutor Misconduct

Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario applied to the High Court of Singapore for leave to investigate Deputy Public Prosecutor Nor’Ashikin binte Samdin for misconduct during the trial of Mario's client, Ezmiwardi bin Kanan. The alleged misconduct stemmed from a criminal breach of trust case where the DPP allegedly misled the court regarding police reports. Chan Sek Keong CJ dismissed the application, finding no prima facie case for investigation.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Application by Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario for investigation into alleged misconduct by Deputy Public Prosecutor Nor’Ashikin Samdin. Application dismissed; no prima facie case found.

1.7 Decision Date

6 May 2012

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario	Applicant	Individual	Application Dismissed	Lost	R S Wijaya of R. S. Wijaya & Co

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chan Sek Keong	Chief Justice	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
R S Wijaya	R. S. Wijaya & Co

4. Facts

The Applicant, an advocate and solicitor, sought leave for an investigation into the conduct of a Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP).
The complaint arose from a criminal breach of trust trial where the Applicant's client was convicted on one charge and acquitted on another.
The Applicant alleged the DPP intentionally withheld a police report from the court and misled the judge.
The DPP claimed the omission was inadvertent due to the confusion of receiving multiple documents on the day of the hearing.
The Chief Justice found no evidence to support the allegation that the DPP intentionally withheld the police report.
The Chief Justice determined that the police reports in question were not essential to the prosecution's case.
The Applicant had a copy of the allegedly withheld police report and referred to it in his closing submissions.

5. Formal Citations

Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario, Originating Summons No 77 of 2012, [2012] SGHC 97

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2008-05-24	PW3 delivered the car to the Accused.
2008-05-28	Accused sold the car to a re-exporter.
2008-06-22	PW3 allegedly paid a further sum of $6,412 to the Accused.
2009-01-28	PW3 made a police report against the Accused.
2009-01-31	PW3 made the 1st 999 Call.
2009-01-31	PW3 made the 2nd 999 Call.
2009-02-20	PW3 made a Non-999 Call to Tanglin Police Station.
2010-03-22	Applicant asked PW3 during cross-examination about the Non-999 Call.
2010-04-20	PW10 stated that he had no information that a 999 call had been made.
2010-04-20	DPP directed PW10 to make another search of the police call records.
2010-04-21	PW10 handed the four copies of the four “999” call records to the DPP.
2010-04-21	PW3 was recalled for cross-examination by the Applicant.
2010-08-20	Applicant submitted written closing submissions for the District Court trial.
2011-08-15	Applicant filed an affidavit in support of Criminal Motion No 58 of 2011.
2011-11-02	DPP filed an affidavit in CM 58/2011.
2011-11-04	Senior Station Inspector Yong Chok Choon filed an affidavit in CM 58/2011.
2012-01-19	AGC filed a complaint to the Law Society of Singapore against the Applicant.
2012-01-31	Applicant filed the present OS under s 82A of the LPA.
2012-03-09	DPP filed an affidavit.
2012-05-07	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Misconduct of a Legal Service Officer
- Outcome: The court found that the applicant had not made out a prima facie case for an investigation into the alleged misconduct.
- Category: Substantive
Prima Facie Case
- Outcome: The court extensively analyzed the meaning of 'a prima facie case' in the context of s 82A(6) of the Legal Profession Act, concluding that the applicant had not met the threshold for an investigation.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [1968–1970] SLR(R) 324
  - [1940] MLJ 47
  - [1948] MLJ 119
  - [1946] MLJ 108
  - [1948] MLJ 3
  - [1968–1970] SLR(R) 821
  - [1979–1980] SLR(R) 266
  - [1981–1982] SLR(R) 133
  - [1991] 1 SLR(R) 961
  - [1992] 2 SLR(R) 918
  - [1993] 1 SLR(R) 267
  - [1993] 2 SLR(R) 67
  - [1995] 1 SLR(R) 407
  - [1996] 2 SLR(R) 799
  - [1994] 1 MLJ 265
  - [1962] 1 WLR 227
  - (1955) 92 CLR 654
  - (1926) SASR 150
  - (1929) 43 CLR 163
  - (1962) 108 CLR 433
  - (1820) 4 B & Ald 95; 106 ER 873
  - (1944) 45 SR (NSW) 64

8. Remedies Sought

Investigation into Misconduct

9. Cause of Actions

Professional Misconduct

10. Practice Areas

Professional Responsibility
Criminal Law
Civil Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Gan Soo Swee and another v Ramoo	N/A	Yes	[1968–1970] SLR(R) 324	Singapore	Cited to define the expression 'a prima facie case'.
Public Prosecutor v Chin Yoke	N/A	Yes	[1940] MLJ 47	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that the court must consider the Prosecution’s evidence as it stands at the close of the Prosecution’s case to determine if a prima facie case has been made out.
Public Prosecutor v R Balasubramaniam	N/A	Yes	[1948] MLJ 119	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that the onus is on the prosecution to prove the case and this burden never shifts.
Public Prosecutor v Lim Teong Seng	N/A	Yes	[1946] MLJ 108	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that the onus is on the prosecution to prove the case and this burden never shifts.
Hoh Keh Peng v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal of the Malayan Union	Yes	[1948] MLJ 3	Malaysia	Cited to show that at the close of the Prosecution’s case, the evidence must be sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ong Kiang Kek v Public Prosecutor	Singapore Court of Criminal Appeal	Yes	[1968–1970] SLR(R) 821	Singapore	Cited to show that at the close of the Prosecution’s case, the evidence must be sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Haw Tua Tau v Public Prosecutor	Court of Criminal Appeal	Yes	[1979–1980] SLR(R) 266	Singapore	Cited in relation to the approach in Ong Kiang Kek.
Haw Tua Tau and others v Public Prosecutor	Privy Council	Yes	[1981–1982] SLR(R) 133	Singapore	Cited for the analysis of s 181(1) of the 1970 CPC and the test for determining whether to call on the Defence at the close of the Prosecution’s case.
Sim Ah Cheoh and others v Public Prosecutor	N/A	Yes	[1991] 1 SLR(R) 961	Singapore	Cited as a case that did not adopt a consistent approach in using or eschewing the terminology of “a prima facie case”.
Public Prosecutor v Wong Wai Hung and another	N/A	Yes	[1992] 2 SLR(R) 918	Singapore	Cited as a case that did not adopt a consistent approach in using or eschewing the terminology of “a prima facie case”.
Tan Siew Chay and others v Public Prosecutor	N/A	Yes	[1993] 1 SLR(R) 267	Singapore	Cited as a case that did not adopt a consistent approach in using or eschewing the terminology of “a prima facie case”.
Public Prosecutor v Gan Lim Soon	N/A	Yes	[1993] 2 SLR(R) 67	Singapore	Cited as a case that did not adopt a consistent approach in using or eschewing the terminology of “a prima facie case”.
Ng Theng Shuang v Public Prosecutor	N/A	Yes	[1995] 1 SLR(R) 407	Singapore	Cited as a case that did not adopt a consistent approach in using or eschewing the terminology of “a prima facie case”.
Public Prosecutor v IC Automation (S) Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1996] 2 SLR(R) 799	Singapore	Cited as a case that did not adopt a consistent approach in using or eschewing the terminology of “a prima facie case”.
Khoo Hi Chiang v PP	N/A	Yes	[1994] 1 MLJ 265	Malaysia	Cited as a case where the Malaysian Supreme Court rejected the minimum evaluation test for the maximum evaluation test.
Practice Direction (Submission of No Case)	N/A	Yes	[1962] 1 WLR 227	England	Cited for the guidelines when submissions were made on no case to answer.
May v O’Sullivan	High Court of Australia	Yes	(1955) 92 CLR 654	Australia	Cited for the examination of the terminology of “a prima facie case” at common law.
Wilson v. Buttery	N/A	Yes	(1926) SASR 150	Australia	Cited in relation to the fact that the defendant has not given evidence as a consideration making the inference of guilt from the evidence for the prosecution less unsafe than it might otherwise possibly appear.
Morgan v. Babcock & Wilcox	N/A	Yes	(1929) 43 CLR 163	Australia	Cited in relation to the fact that the defendant has not given evidence as a consideration making the inference of guilt from the evidence for the prosecution less unsafe than it might otherwise possibly appear.
Zanetti v Hill	High Court of Australia	Yes	(1962) 108 CLR 433	Australia	Cited for the restatement of the meaning of “a prima facie case”.
R. v. Burdett	N/A	Yes	(1820) 4 B & Ald 95; 106 ER 873	N/A	Cited in relation to a weakness in the prosecution’s case may not be eked out by something in the case for the defence.
Ex parte Ferguson; Re Alexander	N/A	Yes	(1944) 45 SR (NSW) 64	Australia	Cited in relation to a weakness in the prosecution’s case may not be eked out by something in the case for the defence.
Public Prosecutor v Ezmiwardi Bin Kanan	District Court	Yes	[2011] SGDC 152	Singapore	Cited for the DJ's grounds of decision in the District Court trial.
Ezmiwardi bin Kanan v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2012] SGHC 44	Singapore	Cited for the Judge's decision on appeal.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 82A	Singapore
Penal Code, Chapter 224 s 406	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Act 15 of 2010), s 230(1)(j)–230(1)(k)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Prima Facie Case
Legal Service Officer
Deputy Public Prosecutor
Misconduct
Investigation
Ex Parte Application
Disciplinary Tribunal
Criminal Breach of Trust

15.2 Keywords

Legal Profession Act
Legal Service Officer
Misconduct
Prima Facie Case
Singapore High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Legal Profession Act	75
Professional Misconduct	65
Criminal Procedure	60
Duty of Candour	55
Evidence Law	50
Criminal Law	40

16. Subjects

Legal Ethics
Professional Conduct
Judicial Review