Syed Suhail v PP: Personal Costs Order Against Counsel for Abuse of Process in Criminal Review Application
In Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of Singapore ordered Mr. Ravi s/o Madasamy, the applicant's counsel, to personally pay costs of $5,000 to the Prosecution. The court found that Mr. Ravi acted improperly and abused the court's process by commencing and conducting a criminal review application (CM 28) without reasonable basis, misrepresenting facts, and making unsubstantiated allegations against previous counsel. The court determined that Mr. Ravi's conduct caused the Prosecution to incur unnecessary costs, justifying the personal costs order.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Personal costs order against the applicant’s counsel.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal ordered counsel Ravi s/o Madasamy to pay personal costs for improperly conducting a criminal review application, deemed an abuse of process.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Costs order in favour | Won | Wuan Kin Lek Nicholas of Attorney-General’s Chambers Chin Jincheng of Attorney-General’s Chambers Francis Ng Yong Kiat of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin | Applicant | Individual | Costs order against counsel | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Wuan Kin Lek Nicholas | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chin Jincheng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Francis Ng Yong Kiat | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ravi s/o Madasamy | Carson Law Chambers |
4. Facts
- Syed Suhail was convicted under s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act and sentenced to the mandatory death penalty.
- Syed Suhail's appeal against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
- Syed Suhail applied for a review of the Court of Appeal's decision, raising two grounds: abnormality of mind and failure to adduce evidence of financial means.
- Mr. Ravi, Syed Suhail's counsel, made allegations against previous counsel without giving them an opportunity to respond.
- The Court of Appeal found that the grounds for review lacked merit and that Mr. Ravi had misrepresented facts and made unsubstantiated allegations.
- The Prosecution sought a personal costs order against Mr. Ravi, arguing that his conduct was unreasonable and improper.
- The Court of Appeal found that Mr. Ravi had acted improperly and abused the court's process, leading to unnecessary costs for the Prosecution.
5. Formal Citations
- Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 28 of 2020, [2021] SGCA 53
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Conviction under s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act and mandatory death penalty imposed in CA/CCA 38/2015. | |
| Court of Appeal affirmed the Trial Judge’s decision in CA/CCA 38/2015. | |
| Applicant applied for leave in CA/CM 27/2020 under s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code to make a review application. | |
| Leave to commence the review application was granted. | |
| CM 28, the review application, was filed. | |
| CM 28 was heard. | |
| Mr Ravi filed further submissions to raise his argument on the Courier Argument. | |
| CM 28 was dismissed in a written judgment. | |
| The Prosecution wrote to court indicating its intention to seek a personal costs order against Mr Ravi. | |
| Timelines for submissions to be filed to deal with the issue of costs were issued. | |
| OS 975 was disposed of by the General Division of the High Court. | |
| The Prosecution sought directions for Mr Ravi to file reply submissions. | |
| Mr Ravi filed his reply submissions. | |
| Applicant wrote a letter to the court requesting that the court waive the personal costs incurred by Mr Ravi. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Judgment date. |
7. Legal Issues
- Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court found that the review application was brought in abuse of process.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Raising arguments without reasonable basis
- Misrepresentation of facts
- Failure to comply with professional duties
- Related Cases:
- [2021] 1 SLR 159
- [2020] 1 SLR 907
- [2018] 2 SLR 1394
- [2010] 4 SLR 534
- [2021] SGCA 23
- [1994] Ch 205
- [1997] 3 SLR(R) 576
- [2001] 3 SLR(R) 220
- [2005] 3 SLR(R)529
- [2018] 2 SLR 532
- [2008] 4 SLR(R) 994
- [2020] 1 SLR 1374
- [2014] 3 SLR 1023
- [2016] 4 SLR 716
- [2016] 3 SLR 135
- Professional Conduct of Counsel
- Outcome: The court found that Mr. Ravi had acted improperly and failed to abide by his professional duty.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Duty to the court
- Duty to previous counsel
- Duty to client
- Candour
- Competence
- Related Cases:
- [2020] 1 SLR 907
- Personal Costs Order
- Outcome: The court ordered Mr. Ravi to personally pay costs of $5,000 to the Prosecution.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Grounds for imposing personal costs
- Test for ordering personal costs
- Factors considered in determining whether to order personal costs
- Related Cases:
- [2018] 2 SLR 1394
- [2010] 4 SLR 534
- [2021] SGCA 23
- [1994] Ch 205
- [1997] 3 SLR(R) 576
- [2001] 3 SLR(R) 220
- [2005] 3 SLR(R)529
- [2018] 2 SLR 532
- [2014] 3 SLR 1023
- [2016] 4 SLR 716
8. Remedies Sought
- Review of conviction and sentence
- Setting aside the death penalty
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
- Professional Responsibility
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 159 | Singapore | The judgment being reviewed in the current application. |
| Mohammad Farid bin Batra v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 907 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that natural justice applies to previous counsel and they must be given notice of allegations and an opportunity to respond. |
| Abdul Kahar bin Othman v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1394 | Singapore | Cited for the court's power under s 357(1)(b) of the CPC or its inherent powers to order that defence counsel pay costs directly to the Prosecution. |
| Zhou Tong and others v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 4 SLR 534 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the principles developed in the context of civil cases are of general application in criminal cases as well. |
| Munshi Rasal v Enlighten Furniture Decoration Co Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 23 | Singapore | Cited for the three-step test in deciding whether to order costs against a solicitor personally. |
| Ridehalgh v Horsefield | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] Ch 205 | England and Wales | Cited for the three-step test in deciding whether to order costs against a solicitor personally. |
| Tang Liang Hong v Lee Kuan Yew and another and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 576 | Singapore | Cited for the three-step test in deciding whether to order costs against a solicitor personally. |
| Ho Kon Kim v Lim Gek Kim Betsy and others and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR(R) 220 | Singapore | Cited for the three-step test in deciding whether to order costs against a solicitor personally. |
| Tan King Hiang v United Engineers (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R)529 | Singapore | Cited for observations concerning the approach to be taken to each of the words, “improper”, “unreasonable” and “negligent”. |
| Bintai Kindenko Pte Ltd v Samsung C&T Corp | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 532 | Singapore | Cited for the situation where a personal costs order may be appropriate is where the solicitor advances a wholly disingenuous case or files utterly ill-conceived applications. |
| The “Vasiliy Golovnin” | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 994 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the duty to make “full and frank disclosure” generally arises in the context of ex parte applications. |
| Mohammad Azli bin Mohammad Salleh v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 1374 | Singapore | Cited as the arguments on the scope of this case were misconceived. |
| Arun Kaliamurthy and others v Public Prosecutor and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 1023 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the requisite standard to be met for legal services provided pro bono should not differ from that vis-à-vis a fee-based retainer. |
| Huang Liping v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 716 | Singapore | Cited for the argument that no decision had addressed the potential for adverse costs orders against counsel specifically for applications under Division 1B of Part XX of the CPC. |
| Kho Jabing v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 135 | Singapore | Cited for the high threshold for applications under Division 1B of Part XX of the CPC. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (S 706/2015) r 29 |
| Criminal Procedure Rules 2018 (S 727/2018) r 11(2)(a) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 5(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 17 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33B(3)(b) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 357(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 357(1A) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 394H | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 394J(3)(b) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 394J(3)(c) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 394J(2) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Personal costs order
- Abuse of process
- Criminal review application
- Professional conduct
- Misrepresentation
- Unsubstantiated allegations
- Duty to the court
- Duty to counsel
- Duty to client
- Candour
- Competence
- Finality
- Meritorious application
- Reasonable basis
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal law
- Criminal procedure
- Legal ethics
- Professional conduct
- Personal costs order
- Abuse of process
- Review application
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure | 95 |
| Sentencing | 90 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Costs | 85 |
| Legal Profession Act | 60 |
| Professional Ethics | 50 |
| Duty of Candour | 40 |
| Administrative Law | 30 |
| Evidence | 30 |
| Fiduciary Duty | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Legal Ethics
- Professional Responsibility