Goldring v. PP: Access to Seized Documents & Fair Trial Rights

In Goldring Timothy Nicholas and others v Public Prosecutor [2013] SGHC 88, the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by Timothy Nicholas Goldring, Geraldine Anthony Thomas, and John Andrew Nordmann for criminal revision of a Senior District Judge's decision. The Applicants, directors of Profitable Plots Pte Ltd, sought copies of documents seized by the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD). The High Court, Rajah JA presiding, allowed the application, holding that a common law right of access exists for owners to obtain copies of documents seized by the police, unless there are reasonable grounds to believe disclosure would be contrary to public interest. The court directed that access should be provided to the Applicants within a reasonable time.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

High Court decision on whether law enforcement must allow access to seized documents to those entitled to legal custody, addressing fair trial rights.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyApplication DismissedLost
Nakoorsha bin Abdul Kadir of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Kevin Yong of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Jeremy Yeo of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Luke Tan of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Goldring, Timothy NicholasApplicantIndividualApplication AllowedWon
Geraldine Anthony ThomasApplicantIndividualApplication AllowedWon
John Andrew NordmannApplicantIndividualApplication AllowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
V K RajahJustice of the Court of AppealYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Nakoorsha bin Abdul KadirAttorney-General’s Chambers
Kevin YongAttorney-General’s Chambers
Jeremy YeoAttorney-General’s Chambers
Luke TanAttorney-General’s Chambers
Wendell WongDrew & Napier LLC
Choo Tse YunDrew & Napier LLC
Benedict Eoon ZizhenDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. Applicants were directors of Profitable Plots Pte Ltd.
  2. Applicants were accused of abetment by conspiracy to cheat.
  3. CAD searched the Company’s premises and seized documents.
  4. CAD did not give the Applicants the opportunity to make copies of any of the Seized Documents before it took the Seized Documents away.
  5. Applicants requested the CAD on several occasions for copies of selected documents amongst the Seized Documents.
  6. The Prosecution rejected the Applicants’ request because it took the position that they had no legal basis for the request.
  7. The Materials were estimated by the Applicants to consist of 5,750 individual documents.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Goldring Timothy Nicholas and others v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Revision No 17 of 2012, [2013] SGHC 88

6. Timeline

DateEvent
CAD searched the Company’s premises and seized documents.
CAD acceded to the Applicants’ last successful request for copies of documents.
Charges were preferred against the Applicants.
Timothy Nicholas Goldring requested copies of some Seized Documents.
ASP Ho rejected the request for copies of seized documents.
Case for the Prosecution was served on the Applicants.
Applicants requested for copies of the Schedule A Documents.
Applicants requested for copies of the Schedule A Documents.
Applicants requested for copies of the Schedule A Documents.
The Prosecution rejected the Applicants’ request.
During the second CCDC, the SDJ directed the parties to file written submissions.
SDJ dismissed the Applicants’ application.
Applicants filed Criminal Motion No 73 of 2012.
High Court allowed the Application and directed that access should be provided to the Applicants within a reasonable time.
The Prosecution filed Criminal Reference No 4 of 2012.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Right of Access to Seized Documents
    • Outcome: The court held that a common law right of access exists for owners to obtain copies of documents seized by the police, unless there are reasonable grounds to believe disclosure would be contrary to public interest.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Denial of access to documents
      • Prejudice to fair trial
      • Public interest considerations
  2. Statutory Interpretation
    • Outcome: The court held that the Criminal Procedure Code did not expressly or impliedly repeal the common law right of access to seized documents.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Presumption against alteration of common law
      • Purposive interpretation of statutes
      • Implied repeal of common law
  3. Fair Trial Rights
    • Outcome: The court held that allowing access to seized documents is consistent with notions of a fair trial.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Right to prepare a defence
      • Access to relevant documents
      • Due process

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Criminal revision of the decision of the Senior District Judge
  2. Order for the Prosecution to produce copies of the Schedule A 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 NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2011] 3 SLR 1205SingaporeCited for the Prosecution's duty of disclosure.
Arias & Others v Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police & AnotherEnglish Court of AppealYes(1984) 128 SJ 784England and WalesPrimary authority for the proposition that a common law right exists for owners to obtain copies of documents seized by the police.
R v MacKenzieSaskatchewan Court of Queen’s BenchYes[1973] 10 CCC (2d) 193CanadaSupports the proposition that a lawful seizure of objects does not destroy proprietary rights but merely detracts from them.
The Queen v Lushington, Ex Parte OttoQueen's Bench DivisionYes[1894] 1 QB 420England and WalesCited for the principle that constables have a duty to retain for use in Court things which may be evidences of crime.
Ghani and Others v JonesCourt of AppealYes[1970] 1 QB 693England and WalesCited for the principle that officers are entitled to take any goods which they reasonably believe to be material evidence.
Jaroo v Attorney General of Trinidad and TobagoPrivy CouncilYes[2002] 1 AC 871Trinidad and TobagoCited with approval of the statement in Ghani v Jones.
Peter Settelen, Chakra Productions Limited v The Commissioner of Police of the MetropolisHigh Court of JusticeYes[2004] EWHC 2171 (Ch)England and WalesCited with approval of the statement in Ghani v Jones.
The Attorney General of Nova Scotia and Ernest Harold Grainger v Linden MacIntyreSupreme CourtYes[1982] 1 RCS 175CanadaAffirms that powers of search and seizure are conferred for the effective administration of criminal justice.
George v Rockett and Another RespondentHigh CourtYes[1990] 170 CLR 104AustraliaObserved that the legislature has given primacy to the public interest in the effective administration of criminal justice over the private right of the individual to enjoy his privacy and property.
Leach v RexHouse of LordsYes[1912] AC 305England and WalesYou must consider, when you are dealing with Acts of Parliament, and examining what the effect of your proposed construction is, whether or not you are dealing with something that it is possible the Legislature might either have passed by definite and specific enactment or have allowed to pass by some ambiguous inference.
Zahrin bin Rabu v Ying Tai Plastic & Metal Manufacturing (S) Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[1981–1982] SLR(R) 511SingaporeLeach was quoted with approval by the High Court.
National Assistance Board v WilkinsonQueen's Bench DivisionYes[1952] 2 QB 648England and WalesIt is “a well-established principle of construction that a statute is not to be taken as effecting a fundamental alteration in the general law unless it uses words that point unmistakably to that conclusion”
Ying Tai Plastic & Metal Manufacturing (S) Pte Ltd v Zahrin bin RabuCourt of AppealYes[1983–1984] SLR(R) 212SingaporeDevlin J’s dictum was quoted with approval by the Court of Appeal.
Ng Boo Tan v Collector of Land RevenueCourt of AppealYes[2002] 2 SLR(R) 633SingaporeDevlin J’s dictum was quoted with approval by the Court of Appeal.
Public Prosecutor v Lo Ah EngMalaysian Federal CourtYes[1965] 1 MLJ 241MalaysiaThe provisions of the Ordinance on that subject are to replace the common law principles on the same subject and so have impliedly repealed the latter.
Adnan bin Kadir v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2013] SLR 276Singapore“[t]he courts must always consider the purpose of the law and not simply the letter of the law”.
Regina v Her Majesty’s Coroner at Hammersmith, Ex parte Peach (Nos 1 and 2)Queen's Bench DivisionYes[1980] 1 QB 211England and Wales“[i]t is elementary that, if a charge is being made against a person, he must be given a fair chance of meeting it. That often means he must be given documents necessary for the purpose”

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Criminal Procedure Code (Act 15 of 2010)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore
Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c 60) (UK)England and Wales
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)Australia
Canadian Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46Canada
Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap 221)Hong Kong

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Seized Documents
  • Category 1 Documents
  • Criminal Case Disclosure Conference
  • Case for the Prosecution
  • Case for the Defence
  • Common Law Right of Access
  • Public Interest
  • Fair Trial
  • Criminal Procedure Code

15.2 Keywords

  • Criminal
  • Procedure
  • Evidence
  • Seized Documents
  • Disclosure
  • Fair Trial
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Criminal Law70
Conspiracy to Defraud60
Evidence50
Criminal Case Disclosure40
Civil Procedure30
Administrative Law20

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure
  • Evidence
  • Human Rights
  • Legal Practice