Tang Keng Lai v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Reference, Abuse of Process, and Costs Implications
In Tang Keng Lai v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of Singapore dismissed the applicant's criminal motion for leave to refer questions of law of public interest, finding it to be an abuse of process. The applicant, Tang Keng Lai, had been convicted of charges under s 471 of the Penal Code for engaging in a conspiracy to fraudulently use forged quotations. The court ordered the applicant to pay costs to the Prosecution, emphasizing that the reference procedure is not intended to circumvent the single tier of appeals.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed; applicant ordered to pay costs to the Prosecution.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex Tempore Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal dismissed Tang Keng Lai's criminal reference application, deeming it an abuse of process and imposing costs. The court reiterated principles for criminal references.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tang Keng Lai | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | Ang Sin Teck |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Costs Awarded | Won | Nicholas Khoo, Suhas Malhotra, Tan Hsiao Tien |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ang Sin Teck | Jing Quee & Chin Joo |
| Nicholas Khoo | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Suhas Malhotra | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Hsiao Tien | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Tang Keng Lai was convicted of 16 charges under s 471 of the Penal Code.
- Tang Keng Lai engaged in a conspiracy to fraudulently use forged quotations as genuine.
- The forged quotations were submitted during an audit of the Singapore Prisons Service.
- The quotations were backdated to give the impression that they had been issued when the projects were ongoing.
- The quotations gave the impression that Thong Huat Brothers (Pte) Ltd had given the lowest quotation.
- Thong Huat Brothers (Pte) Ltd had overcharged Prisons for these items.
- The District Judge concluded that Tang Keng Lai was aware of the plan to submit backdated quotations and had agreed to it.
5. Formal Citations
- Tang Keng Lai v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 4 of 2021, [2021] SGCA 52
- Public Prosecutor v Tang Keng Lai and another, , [2020] SGDC 39
- Public Prosecutor v Tang Keng Lai and another, , [2020] SGDC 40
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Judgment delivered | |
| District Judge's decision (Public Prosecutor v Tang Keng Lai and another [2020] SGDC 39 and 40) |
7. Legal Issues
- Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court found the application to be an abuse of process.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2016] 4 SLR 716
- Criminal Reference
- Outcome: The court reiterated the principles for criminal references and found that the application did not meet the conditions for leave to be granted.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2020] 1 SLR 486
- Conspiracy
- Outcome: The court found that the questions raised by the applicant regarding conspiracy were questions of fact, not law, and did not arise for determination by the High Court.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Leave to refer questions of law of public interest to the Court of Appeal
9. Cause of Actions
- Conspiracy to fraudulently use forged quotations
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v GCK and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 486 | Singapore | Cited for the conditions that must be met before leave can be granted for a question to be referred to the Court of Appeal. |
| Public Prosecutor v Teo Chu Ha | High Court | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 600 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish a question of law from a question of fact. |
| Huang Liping v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 716 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a 'back-door' appeal is an abuse of process and may result in costs being awarded against the applicant. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 471 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 465 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 409 of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 357(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal reference
- Abuse of process
- Forged quotations
- Conspiracy
- Backdated quotations
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Penal Code
- Costs order
- Single tier of appeals
- Questions of law of public interest
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal reference
- Abuse of process
- Costs
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Appeals
- Abuse of Process
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Criminal Sentencing
- Criminal References
- Abuse of Process
- Evidence Law