Cheong Chun Yin v Attorney-General: Application for Judicial Review of Public Prosecutor's Decision on Substantive Assistance

Cheong Chun Yin applied for judicial review against the Public Prosecutor's determination that he did not substantively assist the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) in disrupting drug trafficking and the subsequent decision not to certify his assistance under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The High Court dismissed Cheong's application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings, finding no arguable case of errors of law or violation of constitutional rights by the Public Prosecutor. The court held that the Public Prosecutor's discretion was not unfettered and subject to judicial review only on grounds of bad faith, malice, or unconstitutionality.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Applicant's application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings against the Public Prosecutor was dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Application for judicial review of the Public Prosecutor's decision not to certify substantive assistance in disrupting drug trafficking activities. Leave application dismissed.

1.7 Decision Date

26 June 2014

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Attorney-General	Respondent	Government Agency	Application Dismissed	Won	Marcus Foo Guo Wen of Attorney-General’s Chambers Francis Ng of Attorney-General’s Chambers Chee Min Ping of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Cheong Chun Yin	Applicant	Individual	Application Dismissed	Lost	M Ravi of L F Violet Netto

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Tay Yong Kwang	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Marcus Foo Guo Wen	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Francis Ng	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Chee Min Ping	Attorney-General’s Chambers
M Ravi	L F Violet Netto

4. Facts

The Applicant was arrested for possession of diamorphine for trafficking.
The Public Prosecutor determined that the Applicant had not substantively assisted the CNB.
The Applicant sought judicial review of the Public Prosecutor's determination.
The Applicant claimed the CNB did not adequately investigate information he provided.
The trial judge stated that the CNB's efforts to trace Lau De were immaterial to the Applicant's guilt.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Applicant's appeal against conviction and sentence.
The Applicant argued that the Public Prosecutor should have made an allowance for the CNB's inadequate investigation.

5. Formal Citations

Cheong Chun Yin v Attorney-General, Originating Summons No 25 of 2014, [2014] SGHC 124

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2008-06-16	Applicant and Pang Siew Fum arrested following surveillance by the CNB.
2010-02-04	Applicant and Pang sentenced to death.
2011-02-22	Appeal by Applicant and Pang dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
2012-11-14	Parliament passed the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Act 2012.
2013-01-01	Section 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act came into effect.
2013-01-29	Prosecution invited Mr. Ravi to forward new information.
2013-11-06	Prosecution informed Mr. Ravi that the Public Prosecutor would not be certifying substantive assistance.
2014-01-09	Applicant filed Originating Summons No 25 of 2014.
2014-04-11	Hearing on the application; leave application dismissed.
2014-06-27	Decision date.

7. Legal Issues

Judicial Review of Public Prosecutor's Decision
- Outcome: The court held that the Public Prosecutor's discretion was not unfettered and subject to judicial review only on grounds of bad faith, malice, or unconstitutionality. The court found no arguable case of errors of law.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Jurisdictional error of law
  - Bad faith
  - Malice
  - Unconstitutionality
- Related Cases:
  - [2013] 1 SLR 619
  - [2014] 1 SLR 345
  - [1977-1978] SLR(R) 490
  - [1999] 2 SLR(R)
  - [2013] 4 SLR 1
Breach of Article 12 of the Constitution
- Outcome: The court found that the Applicant failed to provide any evidence that the Public Prosecutor deliberately and arbitrarily discriminated against him.
- Category: Constitutional
- Sub-Issues:
  - Deliberate and arbitrary discrimination
  - Lack of rationality
- Related Cases:
  - [1990] SLR 915
  - [2009] 2 SLR(R) 542
  - [2012] 2 SLR 49

8. Remedies Sought

Quashing orders
Mandatory order
Declaration

9. Cause of Actions

Judicial Review

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Litigation
Public Law

11. Industries

Law Enforcement

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v Attorney-General	High Court	Yes	[2013] 1 SLR 619	Singapore	Cited for the three conditions that must be met for leave to be granted for judicial review.
Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 1 SLR 345	Singapore	Cited for the three conditions that must be met for leave to be granted for judicial review; affirming the High Court's decision.
Re Application by Yee Yut Ee	Unknown	Yes	[1977-1978] SLR(R) 490	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an exclusion clause does not oust the court’s power to review a decision made in excess or lack of jurisdiction.
Stansfield Business International Pte Ltd v Minister for Manpower (formerly known as Minister for Labour)	Unknown	Yes	[1999] 2 SLR(R)	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an exclusion clause does not oust the court’s power to review a decision made in excess or lack of jurisdiction.
Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 4 SLR 1	Singapore	Cited for the explanation of how Order 53 of the Rules of Court should be construed regarding applications for prerogative orders and declarations.
Public Prosecutor v Pang Siew Fum and another	High Court	Yes	[2010] SGHC 40	Singapore	Cited for the trial judge's rejection of the Applicant's defense and conviction.
Pang Siew Fum & another v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] SGCA 5	Singapore	Cited for the Court of Appeal's dismissal of the appeal and the finding that the Applicant had failed to rebut the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the MDA.
Public Prosecutor v Ang Soon Huat	Unknown	Yes	[1990] SLR 915	Singapore	Cited for the test for breach of the equal protection clause in Article 12 of the Constitution in the context of executive actions.
Eng Foong Ho and others v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 2 SLR(R) 542	Singapore	Cited for the application of the test for breach of the equal protection clause in Article 12 of the Constitution.
Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General	Unknown	Yes	[2012] 2 SLR 49	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the courts should proceed on the basis that the Public Prosecutor exercises his power in accordance with law unless shown otherwise.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 53 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 33B(2)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 33B(4) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Act 2012 (Act No. 30 of 2012)	Singapore
s 27(6)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Act 2012 (Act No. 30 of 2012)	Singapore
s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act	Singapore
s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Judicial review
Substantive assistance
Public Prosecutor
Misuse of Drugs Act
Jurisdictional error
Bad faith
Malice
Article 12 of the Constitution

15.2 Keywords

Judicial Review
Public Prosecutor
Substantive Assistance
Misuse of Drugs Act
Drug Trafficking
Singapore
Criminal Law

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Misuse of Drugs Act	90
Criminal Law	70
Criminal Procedure	50
Administrative Law	30
Statutory Interpretation	20

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Administrative Law
Constitutional Law