Salwant Singh v Public Prosecutor: Extension of Time to Reserve Questions of Law
Salwant Singh s/o Amer Singh applied to the Court of Appeal of Singapore for an extension of time to apply to the High Court Judge to reserve questions of law arising from the dismissal of Criminal Revision No 3 of 2017. The Court of Appeal, comprising Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, Judith Prakash JA, and Steven Chong JA, dismissed the application on May 3, 2019, finding it to be an abuse of process and without prospect of success, as the questions of law did not arise in the original application.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex Tempore Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal dismissed Salwant Singh's application for an extension of time to reserve questions of law, finding no prospect of success and abuse of process.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed | Won | Tan Ben Mathias of Attorney-General’s Chambers Leong Weng Tat of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Salwant Singh s/o Amer Singh | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
| Judith Prakash | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Steven Chong | Judge of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tan Ben Mathias | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Leong Weng Tat | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The applicant sought an extension of time to apply to the High Court Judge to reserve questions of law.
- The applicant's previous application for an extension of time was dismissed in July 2018.
- The applicant has filed 10 other applications to reopen his conviction and sentence, all of which were dismissed.
- The present application seeks the same relief as in Criminal Motion No 30 of 2017, but relies on three different questions of law.
- The judge did not decide Criminal Revision No 3 of 2017 on the basis that the application fell within s 74(1) of the SCJA.
- The court found that the questions the applicant seeks to refer to the court did not arise in Criminal Revision No 3 of 2017.
5. Formal Citations
- Salwant Singh s/o Amer Singh v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 18 of 2018, [2019] SGCA 32
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant filed Criminal Revision No 3 of 2017 | |
| Applicant's 9th application | |
| Applicant's 10th application | |
| Criminal Revision No 3 of 2017 dismissed | |
| Applicant filed Criminal Motion No 30 of 2017 | |
| Application to extend time dismissed | |
| Applicant filed present application | |
| Applicant wrote letter to the court | |
| Applicant wrote letter to the court | |
| Application dismissed |
7. Legal Issues
- Extension of Time
- Outcome: The court held that the extension of time was not appropriate because there was no prospect of success in the application for leave to refer questions of law to the court.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Length of delay
- Sufficiency of explanation for delay
- Prospects of application
- Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court found the application to be a further attempt to reopen his conviction and sentence and was a patent abuse of process.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Extension of time to apply to the High Court Judge to reserve questions of law
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Salwant Singh s/o Amer Singh v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] SGCA 34 | Singapore | Cited for the background of the applicant's previous applications and the court's finding of abuse of process. |
| Salwant Singh s/o Amer Singh v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR (R) 632 | Singapore | Cited to show that the applicant's attempts to reopen his conviction and sentence were an abuse of process. |
| Salwant Singh s/o Amer Singh v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2008] SGHC 164 | Singapore | Cited to show that the applicant's attempts to reopen his conviction and sentence were an abuse of process. |
| Chew Eng Han v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 935 | Singapore | Cited for the principles in determining whether an extension of time is appropriate. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Extension of time
- Abuse of process
- Questions of law
- Preventive detention
- Criminal Revision
- Miscarriage of justice
15.2 Keywords
- criminal
- appeal
- extension of time
- abuse of process
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Sentencing | 75 |
| Criminal Procedure | 75 |
| Appeal | 60 |
| Administrative Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure