PP v Goldring: Common Law Right of Access to Seized Documents & Criminal Case Disclosure
The Public Prosecutor sought a criminal reference to the Court of Appeal regarding six questions of law arising from a High Court decision in favor of Goldring Timothy Nicholas and others, who were directors of Profitable Plots Pte Ltd. The questions concerned the right of access to documents seized by the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) during investigations. The Court of Appeal affirmed the existence of a common law right permitting a person access to documents they owned or had legal custody of before seizure, subject to limits to ensure the administration of criminal justice is not prejudiced. The court held that this right is compatible with the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and the criminal case disclosure (CCD) regime.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
The Court of Appeal answered the six questions referred by the Public Prosecutor, affirming the existence of a common law right of access to seized documents.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal clarifies the common law right of access to documents seized from an accused and its relation to criminal case disclosure.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Applicant | Government Agency | Neutral | Neutral | Mavis Chionh, Jeremy Yeo Shenglong, Nicholas Seng |
| Goldring Timothy Nicholas | Respondent | Individual | Won | Won | Wendell Wong, Choo Tse Yun, Benedict Eoon Zizhen |
| Profitable Plots Pte Ltd | Other | Corporation |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Mavis Chionh | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Jeremy Yeo Shenglong | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Nicholas Seng | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Wendell Wong | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Choo Tse Yun | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Benedict Eoon Zizhen | Drew & Napier LLC |
4. Facts
- Respondents were directors of Profitable Plots Pte Ltd.
- CAD officers searched the Company’s premises and seized documents.
- Respondents requested copies of specific documents from the CAD.
- Respondents were charged with 86 counts each of abetment by conspiracy to cheat.
- Respondents applied for an order that the Prosecution provide them with copies of the Schedule A Documents.
- The Judge allowed the Respondents’ application in Criminal Revision No 17 of 2012.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Goldring Timothy Nicholas and others, , [2013] SGCA 59
- Goldring Timothy Nicholas and others v Public Prosecutor, , [2013] 3 SLR 487
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 passed | |
| Commercial Affairs Department searched Profitable Plots Pte Ltd's premises and seized documents | |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 came into force | |
| Respondents made last successful request for copies of specific documents from the CAD | |
| Respondents were charged with 86 counts each of abetment by conspiracy to cheat | |
| 1st Respondent requested copies of some of the Seized Documents | |
| Request rejected on the basis that the documents will be disclosed in due course as part of the Prosecution’s disclosure obligations under the criminal case disclosure regime | |
| First criminal case disclosure conference held | |
| Case for the Prosecution served on the Respondents | |
| Respondents requested copies of the Schedule A Documents | |
| Respondents requested copies of the Schedule A Documents | |
| Respondents requested copies of the Schedule A Documents | |
| Prosecution rejected the Respondents’ requests stating that the Respondents had no legal basis to have those documents | |
| Respondents applied to the Senior District Judge for an order that the Prosecution provide them with copies of the Schedule A Documents | |
| Senior District Judge dismissed application | |
| Respondents filed Criminal Motion No 73 of 2012 | |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2012 came into operation | |
| Hearing regarding access to human resource files | |
| Prosecution stated that upon a review of the contents of the HR files it did not think that there were any reasons for treating them differently from the rest of the Materials | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Right of Access to Seized Documents
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal affirmed the existence of a common law right of access to documents seized by the police, subject to certain limitations.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Scope of the right
- Limits to the right
- Effect of Criminal Procedure Code on the right
- Compatibility of Common Law Right with Criminal Procedure Code
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the common law right of access is compatible with the Criminal Procedure Code and the Criminal Case Disclosure regime.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Effect of Criminal Case Disclosure regime
- Reciprocity
- Sequential disclosure
- Appropriate Procedure for Enforcing Right of Access
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal outlined the appropriate procedures for enforcing the right of access, including application to the Public Prosecutor, application to the Registrar, Magistrate or District Judge of the Subordinate Courts or the Registrar of the Supreme Court.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Criminal Motion
- Judicial Review
- Criminal Revision
8. Remedies Sought
- Access to seized documents
- Copies of seized documents
9. Cause of Actions
- Abetment by conspiracy to cheat
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- White Collar Crime
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Goldring Timothy Nicholas and others v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 487 | Singapore | The decision from which this appeal arose. |
| Arias & Others v Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police & Another | English Court of Appeal | Yes | (1984) 128 SJ 784 | England and Wales | Cited as the principal authority for the existence of a common law right of access to documents seized by the police. |
| Frank Truman Export Ltd and Others v Metropolitan Police Commissioner | English High Court | Yes | [1977] 1 QB 952 | England and Wales | Cited as an earlier case suggesting a right of access to seized documents, based on fairness and due process. |
| United Overseas Bank Ltd v Ng Huat Foundations Pte Ltd | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR(R) 425 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that procedural justice is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a fair and just result. |
| Ghani and others v Jones | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1970] 1 QB 693 | England and Wales | Cited for the common law right to the return of original items lawfully seized if a photograph or copy would suffice. |
| Public Prosecutor v Bridges Christopher | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR(R) 681 | Singapore | The court held that it was only when a question brought by the Public Prosecutor fell within the four corners of s 60 that the High Court was bound to refer the question to the Court of Appeal. |
| Public Prosecutor v Bridges Christopher | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 467 | Singapore | The High Court’s determination of this issue in Public Prosecutor v Bridges Christopher [1997] 1 SLR(R) 681 was in turn approved by the Court of Appeal. |
| Bachoo Mohan Singh v Public Prosecutor and other applications | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 966 | Singapore | This court confirmed that, following the 1998 amendments, the Public Prosecutor’s determination that a question of public interest has arisen can no longer be queried by the High Court when deciding whether or not to grant leave for that question to be referred to the Court of Appeal. |
| Phang Wah v Public Prosecutor and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] SGCA 60 | Singapore | This court decided that no question of law of public interest had in fact arisen in the case although the judge below granted leave to refer the questions concerned to this court. |
| Khor Soon Lee v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 201 | Singapore | The court specially commended the Public Prosecutor for conducting its case in an exemplary fashion which was consistent with the best traditions of the Bar. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Act 15 of 2010) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c 60) | United Kingdom |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal Case Disclosure
- Seized Documents
- Category 1 Documents
- Common Law Right of Access
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Public Interest
- Balancing Process
- Due Process
- Fair Trial
- Reciprocity
- Sequential Disclosure
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Criminal Case Disclosure
- Right of Access
- Seized Documents
- Common Law
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Evidence
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Common Law
- Evidence Law