Arun Kaliamurthy v PP: Riot, Sub Judice Rule & Fair Trial

In Arun Kaliamurthy and others v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore addressed Criminal Motion Nos 32 and 36 of 2014, concerning five Indian nationals charged with rioting. The applicants sought to quash the criminal charges, arguing that a Committee of Inquiry violated the sub judice rule. The prosecution sought to strike out the motion as frivolous and vexatious. The court granted leave to withdraw both motions but considered a personal costs order against the applicants' counsel, Mr. Ravi, for filing a frivolous motion. The court ordered the accused persons to pay costs to the prosecution and Mr. Ravi to reimburse the accused persons.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Accused persons ordered to pay costs to the prosecution; Mr. Ravi ordered to reimburse the accused persons for the costs paid.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court considered whether a costs order should be made against a defence counsel for filing a frivolous criminal motion. The court ultimately ordered costs against the accused.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyCosts awardedWon
Hui Choon Kuen of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Tai Wei Shyong of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Sarah Ong of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Arun Kaliamurthy and othersApplicantIndividualCosts ordered to be paid to the prosecutionLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Siong ThyeJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Hui Choon KuenAttorney-General’s Chambers
Tai Wei ShyongAttorney-General’s Chambers
Sarah OngAttorney-General’s Chambers
Ravi s/o MadasamyMessrs L F Violet Netto

4. Facts

  1. Five Indian nationals faced criminal charges of rioting under the Penal Code for their participation in the riot at Little India on 8 December 2013.
  2. The Minister for Home Affairs appointed a Committee of Inquiry to inquire into events surrounding the riot on 8 December 2013.
  3. Mr. Ravi applied to represent his clients at the COI hearing, but his request was declined.
  4. Mr. Ravi filed CM 32 seeking to quash the criminal charges faced by the accused persons, alleging a breach of the sub judice rule.
  5. The prosecution filed CM 36 to strike out CM 32 on the grounds that it was frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the court process.
  6. Mr. Ravi applied to withdraw CM 32 after the prosecution applied to strike it out.
  7. The prosecution applied for a personal costs order against Mr. Ravi.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Arun Kaliamurthy and others v Public Prosecutor and another matter, Criminal Motion Nos 32 and 36 of 2014, [2014] SGHC 117

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Riot at Little India
Mr. Ravi requested to represent clients at COI hearing
Secretariat replied to Mr. Ravi's letter
Mr. Ravi sent another letter to the secretariat of the COI
Secretariat of the COI replied declining Mr. Ravi’s request
COI hearing commenced
COI hearing concluded
Mr. Ravi wrote to the secretariat of the COI requesting the COI to discontinue the inquiry
Mr. Ravi filed CM 32
Prosecution applied to strike out CM 32 by way of CM 36
Mr. Ravi applied to withdraw CM 32
Prosecution applied to withdraw CM 36
Prosecution informed Mr. Ravi that it would apply for a costs order against him
Parties appeared before the court and leave was granted to withdraw both CM 32 and CM 36
Further hearing
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Sub Judice Rule
    • Outcome: The court found that the application by the accused persons was devoid of merit and that the accused persons did not adduce an iota of evidence to support such a sub judice claim.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Prejudice to fair trial
      • Public disclosure of findings
  2. Costs Order Against Defence Counsel
    • Outcome: The court ordered Mr. Ravi to reimburse the accused persons for the costs paid to the prosecution.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Unreasonable conduct
      • Failure to conduct proceedings with reasonable competence and expedition
  3. Power of Court to Quash Charges
    • Outcome: The court held that it has no power to 'quash' the charges at this juncture of the criminal proceedings when the trials of the accused persons have not even begun.
    • Category: Jurisdictional

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Quashing of criminal charges

9. Cause of Actions

  • Rioting

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Motion Practice

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Planmarine AG v Maritime and Port Authority of SingaporeUnknownYes[1999] 1 SLR(R) 669SingaporeCited regarding the purposive approach to statutory interpretation.
Zhou Tong v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[2010] 4 SLR 534SingaporeCited for the court's inherent jurisdiction to make personal costs orders against solicitors and the underlying principle behind the court’s power to make a costs order against a defence counsel.
Shorvon Simon v Singapore Medical CouncilCourt of AppealYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 182SingaporeCited for the principle against doubtful penalisation when interpreting statutes.
Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo MarioCourt of AppealYes[2013] 3 SLR 258SingaporeCited to clarify that the court's inherent jurisdiction should be described as the court's inherent power.
Tan King Hiang v United Engineers (Singapore) Pte LtdUnknownYes[2005] 3 SLR(R) 529SingaporeCited for the practical and ethical considerations behind the court's power to make a costs order against a defence counsel and the meaning of 'unreasonable' conduct.
Premier Enterprises and Ors v The State of Meghalaya and OrsIndian High CourtYesAIR 1992 Gau 98IndiaCited for the definition of 'dismiss'.
Riduan bin Yusof v Khng Thian Huat and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2005] 2 SLR(R) 188SingaporeCited for the definition of 'frivolous or vexatious' and 'abuse of process'.
Abex Centre Pte Ltd v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[2000] 1 SLR(R) 598SingaporeCited for the exercise of power to order the accused person to pay the costs of prosecution and the test of whether the conduct of the matter was extravagant and unnecessary.
Arjan Singh v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[1993] 1 SLR(R) 542SingaporeCited to affirm that the power to discontinue criminal proceedings before trial is exercisable at the sole discretion of the Attorney-General and not the court.
DB Trustees (Hong Kong) Ltd v Consult Asia Pte LtdUnknownYes[2010] 3 SLR 542SingaporeCited for the overarching rule with regard to ordering costs against a non-party in court proceedings.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (Cap 161, R 1, 2010 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
Inquiries Act (Cap 139A, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore
Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Riot
  • Sub judice rule
  • Committee of Inquiry
  • Criminal motion
  • Costs order
  • Frivolous
  • Vexatious
  • Abuse of process
  • Reasonable competence
  • Extravagant and unnecessary manner

15.2 Keywords

  • Riot
  • Sub judice
  • Costs order
  • Criminal motion
  • Fair trial
  • Legal ethics

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Costs95
Criminal Law85
Criminal Procedure80
Civil Procedure20
Administrative Law15

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure
  • Legal Ethics
  • Contempt of Court