Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of Police Warnings
Mr. Wham Kwok Han Jolovan applied to the High Court of Singapore for judicial review to quash two warnings issued by the Central Police Division (CPD). The warnings related to an event organized by Mr. Wham at Hong Lim Park. The Attorney-General argued that the warnings had no legal effect and could not be quashed. Justice Woo Bih Li dismissed the application, holding that the warnings were merely expressions of opinion and did not affect Mr. Wham's legal rights or liabilities.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Judicial Review
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application for judicial review to quash police warnings. The court dismissed the application, holding that the warnings had no legal effect.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed | Won | Francis Ng Yong Kiat of Attorney-General’s Chambers Zhuo Wen Zhao of Attorney-General’s Chambers Elton Tan of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Wham Kwok Han Jolovan | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Francis Ng Yong Kiat | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Zhuo Wen Zhao | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Elton Tan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Choo Zheng Xi | Peter Low LLC |
| Jason Lee Hong Jet | Peter Low LLC |
4. Facts
- Mr Wham organised a candle light vigil entitled “Democracy Now! Singapore in Solidarity with Hong Kong” at Hong Lim Park.
- The event was publicised on Facebook where it was expressly stated that foreigners and permanent residents required a permit to participate.
- The CPD commenced investigations against Mr Wham as officers from the CPD had observed that there were participants that appeared to be foreigners.
- The AG directed the CPD to issue a warning to Mr Wham to refrain from conduct amounting to an offence under the Order.
- Mr Wham refused to sign the Notice of Warning because he believed that he had done nothing wrong to warrant a warning.
- Mr Wham was informed that a warning had been administered to him on 25 March 2015.
- Mr Wham commenced OS 594 on 22 June 2015.
5. Formal Citations
- Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v Attorney-General, Originating Summons No 594 of 2015, [2015] SGHC 324
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mr Wham organised a candle light vigil at Hong Lim Park. | |
| Mr Wham met DSP Pannirselvam at the CPD Headquarters. | |
| Mr Wham called the Investigation Branch Call Centre of the CPD to enquire about the outcome of the investigations against him. | |
| CPD sent a letter to Mr Wham stating that it had been placed on CPD’s record that Mr Wham was warned by DSP S Pannirselvam on 25 March 2015. | |
| Mr Wham wrote to the police and protested the issuance of a warning against him. | |
| Mr Wham wrote to the Attorney-General’s Chambers to similarly protest the issuance of the warning against him. | |
| Mr Wham commenced OS 594. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Judicial Review
- Outcome: The court held that the matter was not susceptible to judicial review.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 1 SLR 345
- Quashing Order
- Outcome: The court held that the warning was not a determination or a decision that may be quashed.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2010] 2 SLR 1189
8. Remedies Sought
- Quashing Order
9. Cause of Actions
- Judicial Review
10. Practice Areas
- Public Law
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v Attorney-General | Unknown | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 345 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements to grant an applicant leave to bring judicial review proceedings. |
| Comptroller of Income Tax v ACC | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 1189 | Singapore | Cited to support the proposition that a warning has no legal effect and therefore cannot be the subject of a quashing order. |
| Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 476 | Singapore | Cited to define a warning as the communication of information to the warned individual about the possible consequences if he engages in future conduct prohibited by a statutory provision. |
| Hot Holdings Pty Ltd v Creasy and others | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1996) 134 ALR 469 | Australia | Cited as an example of an administrative decision that has an indirect legal effect on the individual. |
| Public Prosecutor v Siew Boon Loong | Unknown | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR(R) 611 | Singapore | Cited regarding the respondent's criminal antecedents. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yap Rogers | Unknown | Yes | [2009] SGDC 146 | Singapore | Cited regarding the circumstances of the case. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Hiang Seng | Unknown | Yes | [2012] SGDC 484 | Singapore | Cited regarding the accused being issued a warning. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Public Order (Unrestricted Area) Order 2013 (S 30/2013) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Judicial Review
- Quashing Order
- Warning
- Public Order
- Hong Lim Park
- Attorney-General
- Central Police Division
15.2 Keywords
- Judicial Review
- Administrative Law
- Warning
- Singapore
- Public Order
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Judicial Review | 75 |
| Administrative Law | 60 |
| Criminal Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Administrative Law
- Constitutional Law