Lee Chen Seong Jeremy v Public Prosecutor: Revision of Seizure Order under Criminal Procedure Code
Lee Chen Seong Jeremy, Agnes Elizabeth So Siong Guat, and Khong Choun Guan, the petitioners, sought a criminal revision against the Public Prosecutor's continued seizure of their property. The High Court, presided over by See Kee Oon J, allowed the revision on 1 March 2019, ordering the release of the seized property. The court addressed novel questions of law regarding the reporting procedure for seized property under s 370(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, specifically whether fresh material could supplement the initial report and whether the prosecution could be heard ex parte after the inter partes hearing had begun. The court found that the Magistrate erred in admitting additional material and indicating a willingness to hear the prosecution ex parte.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court allowed a criminal revision, ordering the release of seized property, clarifying the procedure for reporting seized property under s 370(1)(b) CPC.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee Chen Seong Jeremy | Petitioner | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | Adrian Wong, Ang Leong Hao |
| Agnes Elizabeth So Siong Guat | Petitioner | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | Adrian Wong, Ang Leong Hao |
| Khong Choun Guan | Petitioner | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | Adrian Wong, Ang Leong Hao |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Peter Koy, Sng Yi Zhi Eugene, Ben Mathias Tan |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| See Kee Oon | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Adrian Wong | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Ang Leong Hao | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Peter Koy | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sng Yi Zhi Eugene | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ben Mathias Tan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The petitioners were involved in the management of companies in the Sourcelink and Canaan groups.
- The police seized company files and electronic devices on 6 June 2017.
- The Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) commenced investigations into offences under the Penal Code and the Companies Act.
- On 5 April 2018, CAD requested Mr. Lee's consent to continued seizure, which was denied.
- On 6 June 2018, CAD filed the s 370 Report, stating the property was relevant for investigations.
- The Magistrate was not persuaded that the s 370 Report justified continued seizure.
- The prosecution sought to place additional material before the Magistrate, including an Annex and Addendum.
5. Formal Citations
- Lee Chen Seong Jeremy and others v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Revision No 9 of 2018, [2019] SGHC 48
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Property seized by the police | |
| CAD requested Mr. Lee's consent to continued seizure | |
| Petitioners, through solicitors, informed CAD of non-consent | |
| Petitioners, through solicitors, informed CAD of non-consent | |
| CAD filed the s 370 Report | |
| CAD amended the s 370 Report | |
| Inter partes hearing before the Magistrate | |
| Prosecution filed an addendum to the amended s 370 Report | |
| Adjourned hearing before the Magistrate | |
| Petition for criminal revision filed | |
| Hearing of the criminal revision | |
| Court directed clarifications from prosecution | |
| Prosecution replied with clarifications | |
| High Court allowed the criminal revision |
7. Legal Issues
- Reporting procedure for seized property
- Outcome: The court held that fresh material could not be admitted to supplement the report and that the prosecution was not entitled to be heard ex parte after the inter partes hearing had begun.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Admissibility of fresh material to supplement report
- Entitlement of prosecution to be heard ex parte
- Exercise of Revisionary Jurisdiction
- Outcome: The court found that the threshold for the exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction had been crossed because property belonging to the petitioners was being retained without any legal basis.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Threshold for exercise of revisionary jurisdiction
- Demonstration of material and serious injustice
8. Remedies Sought
- Release of seized property
9. Cause of Actions
- Criminal Revision
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mustafa Ahunbay v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 903 | Singapore | Outlines the procedure for reporting seizure of property to the Magistrate's Court under s 370 CPC and contemplates ex parte hearings being allowed only if they take place before the inter partes hearing. |
| Rajendar Prasad Rai and another v Public Prosecutor and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 333 | Singapore | Dealt with s 370 CPC applications where additional reports beyond the initial s 370 report had been filed. |
| Regina v Davis | N/A | Yes | [1993] 1 WLR 613 | N/A | Cited regarding ex parte hearings. |
| Low Gek Hong v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHC 69 | Singapore | Discusses seeking clarifications from a psychiatric report under the Mandatory Treatment Order regime. |
| BOI v BOJ | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1156 | Singapore | Defines prejudgment and apparent bias. |
| Knight Glenn Jeyasingam v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 196 | Singapore | States that the irregularity noted from the record of proceedings must have resulted in grave and serious injustice. |
| Oon Heng Lye v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 1064 | Singapore | States that the revisionary jurisdiction of the court is to be sparingly exercised and requires a demonstration of material and serious injustice. |
| Soh Guan Cheow Anthony v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 470 | Singapore | Defines 'judgment, sentence or order' in the CPC as having an element of finality. |
| Azman bin Jamaludin v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 615 | Singapore | Defines 'judgment, sentence or order' in the CPC as having an element of finality. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Business Names Registration Act 2014 (No 29 of 2014) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Seized property
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 370
- Reporting procedure
- One-year deadline
- Inter partes hearing
- Ex parte hearing
- Revisionary jurisdiction
- Material and serious injustice
- Commercial Affairs Department
- Relevance to investigations
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Revision
- Seizure of Property
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Ex Parte
- Inter Partes
- Singapore Law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Evidence
- Judicial Review
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing
- Revision of Proceedings