Lim Tean v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of Police Investigations
In Lim Tean v Attorney-General, the High Court of Singapore dismissed Mr. Lim Tean's application for leave to commence judicial review against the Attorney-General, seeking to prevent the police from continuing investigations into alleged criminal breach of trust and unlawful stalking. The court, presided over by Ang Cheng Hock J, found no arguable case of reasonable suspicion to grant the remedies sought, emphasizing the police's duty to investigate and the lack of evidence supporting the claims of bias or impropriety. The application was dismissed with costs.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Judicial Review
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court dismissed Lim Tean's application for judicial review to halt police investigations for criminal breach of trust and unlawful stalking, finding no merit in his claims.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Defendant | Government Agency | Judgment for Defendant | Won | Khoo Boo Jin of Attorney-General’s Chambers Ailene Chou of Attorney-General’s Chambers Joel Chen of Attorney-General’s Chambers Ashley Ong of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lim Tean | Plaintiff | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Ang Cheng Hock | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Khoo Boo Jin | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ailene Chou | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Joel Chen | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ashley Ong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ravi s/o Madasamy | Carson Law Chambers |
4. Facts
- The plaintiff, Lim Tean, is a lawyer and opposition politician under two criminal investigations.
- The first investigation involves alleged criminal breach of trust concerning S$30,000.
- The second investigation concerns alleged unlawful stalking of a former employee.
- The plaintiff refused to attend police interviews, claiming the charges were politically motivated.
- The police arrested the plaintiff after he stated he would not attend any interviews.
- The plaintiff sought to prohibit further investigations, claiming contempt of court and collusion.
- The plaintiff claimed an undertaking was breached when police sought a statement after bail extension.
5. Formal Citations
- Lim Tean v Attorney-General, Originating Summons No 1044 of 2020, [2020] SGHC 270
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| IO Toh and IO Cheong informed the plaintiff he was required to attend the CAD’s office on 28 September 2020. | |
| The plaintiff’s counsel emailed a letter to IO Toh stating that the plaintiff had “no intention of turning up for any interview”. | |
| The plaintiff did not attend the CAD’s office for the scheduled interview. | |
| CAD officers arrested the plaintiff at his office. | |
| IO Toh offered the plaintiff bail at S$30,000 with one surety, on condition that his passport be impounded. | |
| IO Cheong served a notice on the plaintiff that stated that he was required to attend the Central Division’s office on 12 October 2020 at 9.00am for an interview. | |
| The plaintiff filed the present proceedings, OS 1044. | |
| The plaintiff attended Central Division’s office for his interview with IO Cheong for the POHA investigations. | |
| Hearing before Ang Cheng Hock J. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Leave to Commence Judicial Review
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate an arguable or prima facie case of reasonable suspicion in favour of granting the remedies sought.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Susceptibility to judicial review
- Sufficient interest in the matter
- Arguable or prima facie case of reasonable suspicion
- Related Cases:
- [2020] 2 SLR 883
- [2018] 1 SLR 1069
- [2020] 1 SLR 586
- Contempt of Court
- Outcome: The court held that the CAD investigations did not pose a real risk of interference with or obstruction of the administration of justice.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Interference with the administration of justice
- Risk of interference with legal proceedings
- Police Investigations
- Outcome: The court held that it would not be appropriate to direct the police on when to commence or stop its investigations, barring any express statutory provision.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Duty to investigate
- Discretion to investigate
- Related Cases:
- [2010] 1 SLR 1026
8. Remedies Sought
- Prohibiting order to prohibit further investigation
- Mandatory order against CAD and the police to discontinue the investigations
- Declaration that IO Toh breached his and CAD’s undertaking
9. Cause of Actions
- Judicial Review
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
- Public Law
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gobi a/l Avedian and another v Attorney-General and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 883 | Singapore | Cited for the three requirements that must be satisfied before leave can be granted to commence judicial review. |
| AXY and others v Comptroller of Income Tax | High Court | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 1069 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the burden of proof lies on the applicant to satisfy the court that the requirements for judicial review are met. |
| Lee Pheng Lip Ian v Chen Fun Gee and others | High Court | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 586 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that courts have not hesitated to dismiss unmeritorious judicial review applications even at the leave stage. |
| Anwar Siraj and another v Ting Kang Chung John | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 1026 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court will not instruct law enforcement agencies on how to do their jobs. |
| Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 49 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Attorney-General’s discretion to prosecute is subject to judicial review only in cases of abuse of power or contravention of constitutional rights. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis | High Court | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 239 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Attorney-General’s discretion to prosecute is subject to judicial review only in cases of abuse of power or contravention of constitutional rights. |
| R v Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall, ex p Central Electricity Generating Board | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1982] QB 458 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the police should decide on their own responsibility what action should be taken in any particular situation. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 (Act 19 of 2016) | Singapore |
| Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Judicial review
- Criminal breach of trust
- Unlawful stalking
- Police investigations
- Contempt of court
- Collusion
- Undertaking
- Political motivation
15.2 Keywords
- Judicial review
- Police investigation
- Criminal breach of trust
- Unlawful stalking
- Singapore
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Judicial Review | 90 |
| Administrative Law | 75 |
| Criminal Law | 60 |
| Civil Procedure | 40 |
| Contempt of Court | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Administrative Law
- Criminal Law
- Civil Procedure