Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General: Review of Detention under Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act for Match-Fixing
In Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General, the High Court of Singapore heard an application by Tan Seet Eng for an Order for Review of Detention (ORD) under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLTPA), following his detention for alleged involvement in global match-fixing activities. Tan argued illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety. The Attorney-General opposed the application. Tay Yong Kwang J dismissed the application, finding that the detention order was valid and the applicant failed to establish grounds for review. The applicant was ordered to pay costs to the Attorney-General.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Tan Seet Eng sought review of his detention under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act for alleged global match-fixing. The High Court dismissed the application.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed | Won | Hay Hung Chun of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jeyendran Jeyapal of Attorney-General’s Chambers Ailene Chou of Attorney-General’s Chambers Kevin Tan of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Seet Eng | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Hay Hung Chun | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jeyendran Jeyapal | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ailene Chou | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Kevin Tan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Hamidul Haq | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Thong Chee Kun | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Istyana Ibrahim | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Ho Lifen | Rajah & Tann LLP |
4. Facts
- The applicant was detained under s 30 of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act.
- The applicant was allegedly involved in match-fixing activities globally.
- The Minister for Home Affairs was satisfied that the applicant had been associated with activities of a criminal nature.
- The President confirmed the detention order.
- The applicant argued that his detention was illegal, irrational and procedurally improper.
- The applicant's statements were recorded under s 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act by an officer from the Commercial Affairs Department, not the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau.
5. Formal Citations
- Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General, Originating Summons No 772 of 2014, [2015] SGHC 18
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant arrested for alleged involvement in match-fixing activities globally | |
| Applicant arrested under s 44(1) of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act | |
| Applicant detained for a further period of 14 days under s 44(3) of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act | |
| Application for an Order for Review of Detention made in Originating Summons No 913 of 2013 | |
| Minister for Home Affairs issued an order under s 30 of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act on the Applicant | |
| Originating Summons No 913 of 2013 withdrawn | |
| Hearing before the Criminal Law Advisory Committee took place | |
| Hearing before the Criminal Law Advisory Committee took place | |
| Criminal Law Advisory Committee submitted its written report to the President | |
| President confirmed the detention order pursuant to s 31(3) of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act | |
| Rajah & Tann LLP informed of the President’s confirmation | |
| Present application commenced | |
| Criminal Law Advisory Committee reviewed the Applicant’s case | |
| Rajah & Tann LLP wrote to the authorities to urge the Criminal Law Advisory Committee to consider releasing the Applicant | |
| Rajah & Tann LLP informed that the Criminal Law Advisory Committee had reviewed the Applicant’s case in August 2014 | |
| Parties appeared before the judge | |
| Hearing took place | |
| Application dismissed |
7. Legal Issues
- Illegality of Detention
- Outcome: The court held that the activities undertaken by the Applicant fell within the category of offences contemplated by the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Irrationality of Detention
- Outcome: The court held that the decision to detain the Applicant was not so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.
- Category: Substantive
- Procedural Impropriety of Detention
- Outcome: The court held that the fact that the statement may have been recorded by a wrong officer would not result in it being excluded from being taken into account by the Minister, the Criminal Law Advisory Committee or the President.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Order for Review of Detention
- Summons for the Order for Review of Detention
9. Cause of Actions
- Application for Order for Review of Detention
10. Practice Areas
- Judicial Review
11. Industries
- Sports
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kamal Jit Singh v Minister for Home Affairs and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 3 SLR(R) 352 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an applicant for an Order for Review of Detention must show probable cause that the detention was unlawful. |
| Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs and others and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1988] 2 SLR(R) 525 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that in habeas corpus proceedings, the burden in the first instance is on the detaining authority to justify the legality of the detention and that the scope of review is limited to illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. |
| Re Wong Sin Yee | High Court | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 676 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the applicant challenged his detention under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act and the court proceeded on the basis that the scope of review extended to the three grounds set out in the GCHQ case. |
| Karam Singh v Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri (Minister of Home Affairs), Malaysia | N/A | Yes | [1969] 2 MLJ 129 | Malaysia | Cited as the Federal Court of Malaysia decision that the subjective discretion test was rejected. |
| Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service | N/A | Yes | [1985] AC 374 | England | Cited for the three grounds of review: illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. |
| Teo Soh Lung v Minister for Home Affairs and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1990] 1 SLR(R) 347 | Singapore | Cited to confirm the effect of legislative amendments in ousting the jurisdiction of the courts in relation to the Internal Security Act. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 54 r 1 |
| Criminal Law (Advisory Committees) Rules (Cap 67, R 1, 1990 Rev Ed) r 13 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Cap 67, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 27 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Match-fixing
- Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act
- Order for Review of Detention
- Preventive detention
- Public safety
- Illegality
- Irrationality
- Procedural impropriety
15.2 Keywords
- Match-fixing
- Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act
- Preventive Detention
- Judicial Review
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Match-fixing | 90 |
| Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act | 80 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Review of Detention | 70 |
| Administrative Law | 60 |
| Prevention of Corruption Act | 40 |
| Contract Law | 10 |
| Arbitration | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Administrative Law
- Preventive Detention
- Judicial Review