Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General: Application for Prohibiting Order and Declarations Regarding Caning

In Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General, the High Court of Singapore dismissed Yong Vui Kong's originating summons seeking leave to apply for a prohibiting order and declarations related to his sentence of caning. The court found that the application lacked a valid legal basis and that Yong was precluded from seeking the production of certain orders under the principle of res judicata or abuse of process. The court ordered Yong's counsel, Ms. Netto, to personally pay the Attorney-General's disbursements and costs for the summonses.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court struck out Yong Vui Kong's application for a prohibiting order and declarations related to his caning sentence, finding the application without valid legal basis.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Attorney-GeneralDefendantGovernment AgencySummons 1788 grantedWon
Loh Hui-min of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Francis Ng of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Yong Vui KongPlaintiffIndividualApplication dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Loh Hui-minAttorney-General’s Chambers
Francis NgAttorney-General’s Chambers
L F Violet NettoM/s L F Violet Netto

4. Facts

  1. Yong was sentenced to life imprisonment and caning under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
  2. Yong appealed against the caning sentence, but the appeal was dismissed.
  3. Yong filed an OS seeking a prohibiting order and declarations related to the caning.
  4. Yong alleged unequal treatment based on nationality, claiming another prisoner was allowed to escape caning.
  5. SPS denied Yong's request for his own medical practitioner to assess his fitness for caning.
  6. Yong sought a mandatory order to compel the COP to produce internal Standing Orders and Standard Operating Procedures.
  7. The Court of Appeal had previously considered the issue of producing the Orders and decided not to do so.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General, Originating Summons No 226 of 2015 (Summonses No 1788 and 1789 of 2015), [2015] SGHC 178

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Sentence of life imprisonment took effect
High Court imposed sentence of life imprisonment and caning
Mr. Ravi wrote to Director of Prison to arrange specialist doctor
SPS replied, denying request for Yong's own medical practitioner
Court of Appeal dismissed Yong's appeal
SPS received copy of letter signed off under the name of “M. Ravi”
SPS received original copy of letter signed off under Ms Netto’s name
AGC replied to Ms Netto's letter
Yong filed the Originating Summons
Pre-trial conference held
Attorney-General filed Summons 1788 to strike out the OS
Yong filed Summons 1789 to amend the OS
Hearing of summonses
Decision date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Unequal Treatment
    • Outcome: The court found that the allegation of unequal treatment was untenable.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Abuse of Process/Res Judicata
    • Outcome: The court held that Yong was precluded from seeking the production of the Orders under the principle of res judicata or abuse of process.
    • Category: Procedural
  3. Costs against Solicitor
    • Outcome: The court ordered Ms. Netto to personally pay the Attorney-General's disbursements and costs.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Prohibiting Order
  2. Declarations
  3. Mandatory Order

9. Cause of Actions

  • Violation of Article 12 of the Constitution
  • Application for Prohibiting Order

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Civil Procedure

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Yong Vui Kong v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2015] 2 SLR 1129SingaporeThe Court of Appeal dismissed Yong's appeal against the caning sentence. The High Court referred to this dismissal when striking out Yong's application.
Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation of Strata Title Plan 301High CourtYes[2005] 3 SLR(R) 157SingaporeCited for the requirements of res judicata in the sense of issue estoppel.
Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck and othersHigh CourtYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 453SingaporeCited to expound on the requirements of res judicata.
Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police and othersHouse of LordsYes[1982] AC 529United KingdomCited for Lord Diplock’s observation on whether issue estoppel applies to criminal cases and collateral attacks on court decisions.
Henderson v HendersonCourt of ChanceryYes(1843) 3 Hare 100United KingdomCited for the principle of abuse of process rather than res judicata.
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (a firm)House of LordsYes[2002] 2 AC 1United KingdomCited for the judgment of Lord Bingham of Cornhill on the principle of abuse of process.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint)Singapore
Prisons Act (Cap 247, 2000 Rev Ed)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Caning
  • Unequal Treatment
  • Res Judicata
  • Abuse of Process
  • Prohibiting Order
  • Originating Summons
  • Commissioner of Prisons
  • Standing Orders
  • Standard Operating Procedures

15.2 Keywords

  • Caning
  • Criminal Law
  • Constitutional Law
  • Singapore
  • High Court
  • Yong Vui Kong
  • Attorney-General
  • Judicial Review

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Misuse of Drugs Act90
Criminal Procedure70
Criminal Law70
Constitutional Law60
Civil Procedure50
Administrative Law40
Contempt of Court30
Prison Law30

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Constitutional Law
  • Civil Procedure