Tan Hon Leong Eddie v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of CNB & AG Decisions on Drug Offenses
In Tan Hon Leong Eddie v Attorney-General, the High Court of Singapore dismissed Mr. Tan's application for leave to seek judicial review of the Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau's (CNB) decision not to subject him to a Supervision Order or a DRC Order, and the Attorney-General's decision to bring five charges against him for drug possession and consumption. Mr. Tan argued that these decisions were inconsistent with the objectives of the 2019 amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act regarding enhanced rehabilitation for pure drug abusers. The court found no arguable case for judicial review.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Judicial Review
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application for judicial review of CNB and Attorney-General's decisions regarding drug offenses. The court dismissed the application, finding no arguable case.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Application Dismissed | Won | Pavithra Ramkumar of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lim Woon Yee of Attorney-General’s Chambers Loo Yu Hao Adrian of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Hon Leong Eddie | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Aedit Abdullah | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Pavithra Ramkumar | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lim Woon Yee | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Loo Yu Hao Adrian | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chooi Jing Yen | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Joel Wong En Jie | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
4. Facts
- Applicant was arrested in January 2020 for drug-related offences.
- Drugs, including cannabis mixture and ecstasy, were found in the Applicant’s residence.
- The quantity of cannabis mixture was 262.30g, more than eight times the statutory minimum weight to invoke the presumption of trafficking.
- The Applicant was charged under ss 8(a), 8(b)(ii) and 9 of the MDA for five offences of drug possession and consumption.
- The Director of CNB decided not to subject the Applicant to a Supervision Order or a DRC Order.
- The Attorney-General decided to bring the five charges against the Applicant.
5. Formal Citations
- Tan Hon Leong Eddie v Attorney-General, Originating Summons No 36 of 2021, [2021] SGHC 196
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant arrested on suspicion of having committed drug-related offences. | |
| Charges tendered against the Applicant in court. | |
| Applicant made representations to the Director regarding the enhanced rehabilitation regime. | |
| Applicant's representations to the Director were rejected. | |
| Applicant made representations to the Attorney-General regarding the enhanced rehabilitation regime. | |
| Applicant's representations to the Attorney-General were rejected. | |
| Applicant indicated intent to seek judicial review if charges were not withdrawn. | |
| Respondent replied to the Applicant's open letter. | |
| Applicant filed application for leave to seek judicial review. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Judgment date. |
7. Legal Issues
- Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions
- Outcome: The court found that the applicant did not have an arguable case for judicial review.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Grounds for judicial review (illegality, irrationality, substantive legitimate expectation)
- Extension of time to apply for leave
- Related Cases:
- [2020] 2 SLR 883
- [2016] 1 SLR 779
- [1988] 2 SLR(R) 525
- Illegality
- Outcome: The court found no illegality in the Director's or Attorney-General's decisions.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Ultra vires action by Director of CNB
- Ultra vires action by Attorney-General
- Related Cases:
- [2017] 2 SLR 850
- Irrationality
- Outcome: The court found no irrationality in the Director's or Attorney-General's decisions.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Irrelevant considerations
- Failure to consider relevant considerations
- Related Cases:
- [2016] 1 SLR 779
- Substantive Legitimate Expectation
- Outcome: The court found that the applicant did not have a substantive legitimate expectation.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Detrimental reliance
- Authority to make representation
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 1 SLR 1047
- [2018] 2 SLR 557
- [2000] 2 AC 326
- Unconstitutionality
- Outcome: The court found no breach of Article 12 of the Constitution.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Breach of Article 12 of the Constitution
8. Remedies Sought
- Quashing order to quash the Attorney-General’s Decision
- Mandatory order that the Director reconsider his Decision
- Mandatory order that the Attorney-General reconsider his Decision
- Declaration that the Director’s Decision was contrary to Art 12 of the Constitution, was illegal, was irrational, or was contrary to the Applicant’s substantive legitimate expectations
- Declaration that the Attorney-General’s Decision was contrary to Art 12 of the Constitution, was illegal, was irrational, or was contrary to the Applicant’s substantive legitimate expectations
9. Cause of Actions
- Judicial Review of Director's Decision
- Judicial Review of Attorney-General's Decision
10. Practice Areas
- Public Law
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per Ah Seng Robin and another v Housing and Development Board and another | High Court | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 1020 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court will lean towards granting an extension of time where the delay is caused by serious and genuine attempts to resolve the dispute without litigation. |
| 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 the court will grant leave to commence judicial review proceedings. |
| Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 779 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of irrationality as a head of review. |
| Secretary of State for the Home Department v AP | House of Lords | Yes | [2011] 2 AC 1 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that a decision may be irrational because the decision-maker accorded manifestly excessive or manifestly inadequate weight to a relevant consideration. |
| R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Richmond-upon-Thames London Borough Council and others | High Court of Justice | Yes | [1994] 1 WLR 74 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a decision may be irrational because the decision-maker’s assessment of what considerations are relevant or irrelevant is one which no reasonable decision-maker would have made. |
| Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs and others and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1988] 2 SLR(R) 525 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the decision-maker must exercise the discretion in accordance with the legislation conferring that discretion. |
| Kardachi, Jason Aleksander v Attorney-General | High Court | No | [2020] 2 SLR 1190 | Singapore | Cited to show that the question of whether the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation should be recognised in Singapore remains open. |
| SGB Starkstrom Pte Ltd v Commissioner for Labour | Court of Appeal | No | [2016] 3 SLR 598 | Singapore | Cited for the concerns about adopting the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation. |
| Chiu Teng @ Kallang Pte Ltd v Singapore Land Authority | High Court | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 1047 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements for substantive legitimate expectation. |
| Adri Anton Kalangie v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | No | [2018] 2 SLR 557 | Singapore | Cited for the doubt that an individual can have a legitimate expectation, when he commits an offence, as to the sentence he will receive if successfully prosecuted. |
| R v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others | House of Lords | No | [2000] 2 AC 326 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that ministers’ statements on their officials’ future conduct could not found a legitimate expectation as to future decisions by the Director of Public Prosecutions on the conduct of criminal proceedings because he acted independently of the Executive when making those decisions. |
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Cited for the proper approach to statutory interpretation. |
| Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 49 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Attorney-General has no general obligation to disclose his reasons for making a particular prosecutorial decision. |
| Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 1222 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that disclosure is not required unless the applicant adduces prima facie evidence that the Attorney-General has breached the relevant standard. |
| Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 216 | Singapore | Cited for the threshold in the third requirement is “very low” |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 53 r 1(6) of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 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
- Pure drug abuser
- Supervision Order
- DRC Order
- Prosecutorial discretion
- Substantive legitimate expectation
- Illegality
- Irrationality
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Central Narcotics Bureau
- Attorney-General
- Minister's speech
15.2 Keywords
- Judicial Review
- Drug Offences
- Administrative Law
- Singapore
- CNB
- Attorney-General
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Administrative Law | 90 |
| Drug Crimes | 70 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 40 |
| Criminal Law | 30 |
| Constitutional Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Administrative Law
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
- Judicial Review