Salwant Singh v DPPs: Legal Profession Act - Disciplinary Proceedings

Salwant Singh applied to the High Court of Singapore for leave to investigate three Deputy Public Prosecutors (DPPs) for misconduct under the Legal Profession Act, alleging they fabricated charges against him in 2003. Sundaresh Menon CJ dismissed the application, finding no prima facie case due to the applicant's delay in raising the issue, the lack of evidence supporting the allegations, and the fact that the alleged misconduct did not affect the applicant's conviction or sentence.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Regulatory

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Application for investigation into DPPs' misconduct dismissed. Applicant claimed fabricated charges, but court found no prima facie case due to delay and lack of evidence.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Salwant Singh s/o Amer SinghApplicantIndividualApplication DismissedLost
Salwant Singh of Independent Practitioner

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Salwant SinghIndependent Practitioner

4. Facts

  1. The applicant pleaded guilty to five charges of cheating in 2003.
  2. An additional 760 charges of cheating were taken into consideration for sentencing.
  3. The applicant's sentence was enhanced to 20 years' preventive detention on appeal.
  4. The applicant claimed DPPs fabricated charges against him.
  5. The applicant alleged an inconsistency between the SOF and some TIC charges.
  6. The applicant claimed he was not in Singapore on the dates of some of the TIC charges.
  7. The applicant had committed several other offences prior to the 1999 cheating offences.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Re Salwant Singh s/o Amer Singh, Originating Summons No 171 of 2019, [2019] SGHC 225

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Applicant carried out transactions using EDC terminal
Applicant left Singapore for India
Applicant returned to Singapore
Applicant pleaded guilty to five charges
Sentencing adjourned for preventive detention suitability report
Applicant applied to retract his plea
Applicant filed a second application to retract his plea
Magistrate's Appeal No 115 of 2003 heard
Applicant filed application under the Legal Profession Act
Hearing Date
Judgment Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Misconduct of Legal Service Officers
    • Outcome: The court found that a prima facie case of misconduct was not established.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Fabrication of charges
      • Premeditated and malicious prosecution
  2. Delay in Bringing Complaint
    • Outcome: The court found that the severe delay in bringing the application militated against granting leave to commence an investigation.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Investigation into Misconduct

9. Cause of Actions

  • Misconduct
  • Malicious Prosecution

10. Practice Areas

  • Regulatory Law

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Public Prosecutor v Salwant Singh s/o Amer Singh and another caseDistrict CourtYes[2003] SGDC 146SingaporeCited for the District Court's sentencing decision.
Public Prosecutor v Salwant Singh s/o Amer SinghHigh CourtYes[2003] 4 SLR(R) 305SingaporeCited for the appeal decision enhancing the applicant's sentence.
Salwant Singh s/o Amer Singh v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2005] 1 SLR (R) 632SingaporeCited for the Court of Appeal's decision regarding pre-trial conference notes.
Salwant Singh s/o Amer Singh v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2008] SGHC 164SingaporeCited for the High Court's decision on the review of detention.
Law Society of Singapore v Ravi s/o MadasamyHigh CourtYes[2015] 3 SLR 1187SingaporeCited for the two-stage inquiry process in misconduct complaints.
Law Society of Singapore v Chan Chun Hwee AllanCourt of Three JudgesYes[2018] 4 SLR 859SingaporeCited for factors to consider regarding delay in bringing a complaint.
Public Prosecutor v Mok Ping Wuen MauriceHigh CourtYes[1998] 3 SLR(R) 439SingaporeCited for the effect of taking into consideration outstanding offences.
Public Prosecutor v UICourt of AppealYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 500SingaporeCited for explanation of the rationale and effect of charges taken into consideration.
Public Prosecutor v Rosli bin YassinCourt of AppealYes[2013] 2 SLR 831SingaporeCited for the principle of protecting the public in preventive detention.
Public Prosecutor v Raffi bin Jelan and AnotherHigh CourtYes[2004] SGHC 120SingaporeCited for the rationale of preventive sentencing.
Public Prosecutor v Perumal s/o SuppiahHigh CourtYes[2000] 2 SLR(R) 145SingaporeCited for the distinction between preventive detention and imprisonment.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Section 82A of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 420 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Article 9(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint)Singapore
Section 148 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 304(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Preventive detention
  • TIC charges
  • Statement of Facts
  • Deputy Public Prosecutors
  • Legal Profession Act
  • Misconduct
  • Extradition
  • Alibi
  • Prima facie case

15.2 Keywords

  • Legal Profession Act
  • Disciplinary Proceedings
  • Misconduct
  • Deputy Public Prosecutor
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Legal Ethics
  • Criminal Law
  • Regulatory Law