Roslan bin Bakar v Public Prosecutor: Costs for Frivolous Criminal Motion and Judicial Review Appeal
The Singapore Court of Appeal heard applications for costs against Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) and Mr. Charles Yeo in relation to Criminal Motion No 6 of 2022 (CM 6) and Civil Appeal No 6 of 2022 (CA 6). CM 6 was filed by Roslan bin Bakar, Pausi bin Jefridin, and LFL, seeking review of earlier decisions related to the criminal cases against Roslan and Pausi. CA 6 was an appeal against the dismissal of an application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings. The court dismissed both CM 6 and CA 6 and ordered LFL to pay costs of $1,000 and Mr. Yeo to pay costs of $4,000, finding that LFL had no standing to bring CM 6 and that Mr. Yeo acted improperly in filing both CM 6 and CA 6 without sufficient basis.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Costs ordered against Lawyers for Liberty and Mr. Charles Yeo.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal orders costs against Lawyers for Liberty and counsel Charles Yeo for abuse of process in a criminal motion and appeal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roslan bin Bakar | Applicant, Appellant, Plaintiff | Individual | Costs ordered against counsel | Lost | Charles Yeo Yao Hui |
| Pausi bin Jefridin | Applicant, Appellant, Plaintiff | Individual | Costs ordered against counsel | Lost | Charles Yeo Yao Hui |
| Lawyers for Liberty | Applicant | Association | Costs ordered to be paid | Lost | |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Costs awarded | Won | Francis Ng Yong Kiat, Adrian Loo Yu Hao, Samuel Yap Zong En, Chan Yi Cheng, Shenna Tjoa Kai-En |
| Attorney-General | Respondent, Defendant | Government Agency | Costs awarded | Won | Francis Ng Yong Kiat, Adrian Loo Yu Hao, Samuel Yap Zong En, Chan Yi Cheng, Shenna Tjoa Kai-En |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge of the Appellate Division | No |
| Woo Bih Li | Judge of the Appellate Division | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Charles Yeo Yao Hui | L F Violet Netto |
| Francis Ng Yong Kiat | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Adrian Loo Yu Hao | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Samuel Yap Zong En | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chan Yi Cheng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Shenna Tjoa Kai-En | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Roslan and Pausi were convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to death.
- Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) joined Roslan and Pausi in filing a criminal motion to review their sentences.
- LFL is a Malaysian organization with no direct interest in the criminal cases.
- Mr. Yeo, counsel for the applicants, had not met Roslan and Pausi before filing the motion.
- The criminal motion was filed shortly before the scheduled execution date.
- The court found that the applicants had no material to justify a review of their sentences.
- LFL argued that the costs provisions of the CPC were unconstitutional.
5. Formal Citations
- Roslan bin Bakar and othersvPublic Prosecutor and another appeal, , [2022] SGCA 57
- Roslan bin Bakar and othersvPublic Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 6 of 2022, Criminal Motion No 6 of 2022
- Roslan bin Bakar and Pausi bin JefridinvAttorney-General, Civil Appeal No 6 of 2022, Civil Appeal No 6 of 2022
- Roslan bin Bakar and Pausi bin JefridinvAttorney-General, CA/CCA 59/2017, CA/CCA 59/2017
- Roslan bin Bakar and Pausi bin JefridinvAttorney-General, CA/CCA 26/2018, CA/CCA 26/2018
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Criminal Motion No 6 of 2022 filed | |
| Criminal Motion No 6 of 2022 heard and dismissed | |
| Originating Summons 139 of 2022 filed | |
| Originating Summons 139 of 2022 heard and dismissed | |
| Civil Appeal No 6 of 2022 filed | |
| Respondents' written submissions filed | |
| Mr. Yeo filed his written submissions | |
| Mr. Yeo informed the court that LFL will not be making any submissions | |
| LFL sought a postponement of the hearing | |
| Parties informed that the hearing would be adjourned | |
| LFL indicated that it would be represented by its Advisor, Mr N Surendran | |
| LFL requested that it be allowed to rely upon its submissions sent by e-mail | |
| AGC informed the court that it did not object to LFL’s requests | |
| Court acceded to LFL’s requests | |
| Hearing in respect of costs held | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court found that the filing of CM 6 and CA 6 was an abuse of process.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Filing frivolous application
- Lack of standing
- Delaying execution
- Related Cases:
- [2022] SGCA 18
- [2022] SGCA 20
- [2014] 3 SLR 1023
- [2021] 2 SLR 377
- Standing
- Outcome: The court held that Lawyers for Liberty had no standing to be a party to CM 6.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Foreign entity lacking direct interest
- No legal basis for inclusion in application
- Related Cases:
- [2022] SGCA 18
- Personal Liability for Costs
- Outcome: The court ordered Mr. Yeo to personally contribute to the costs incurred by the respondent.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Improper conduct of lawyer
- Unnecessary costs incurred
- Related Cases:
- [2021] 2 SLR 377
- Constitutional Challenge to Costs Provisions
- Outcome: The court found LFL's arguments unconvincing and devoid of legal basis.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Breach of Article 9 of the Constitution
- Breach of natural justice
- Impeding right to fair trial
8. Remedies Sought
- Review of Death Sentences
- Stay of Execution
- Order to strike down ss 356, 357 and 409 of the CPC
9. Cause of Actions
- Review of Criminal Conviction
- Judicial Review
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Judicial Review
- Costs
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roslan bin Bakar & anor v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] SGCA 18 | Singapore | Full grounds of decision for dismissing Criminal Motion No 6 of 2022. |
| Roslan bin Bakar and another v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] SGCA 20 | Singapore | Full grounds of decision for dismissing Civil Appeal No 6 of 2022. |
| Arun Kaliamurthy and others v Public Prosecutor and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 1023 | Singapore | Considered Section 409 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the court's supervisory powers over the conduct of parties in filing criminal motions. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 377 | Singapore | Leading authority on when a lawyer for a criminal defendant can be ordered to pay costs personally to the prosecution. |
| Abdul Kahar bin Othman v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1394 | Singapore | The court hearing criminal proceedings has the power under s 357(1)(b) or by virtue of its inherent powers to order that defence counsel pays costs directly to the prosecution in an appropriate case. |
| Ridehalgh v Horsefield | Chancery Division | Yes | [1994] Ch 205 | England and Wales | Formulation of Sir Thomas Bingham MR on improper, unreasonable or negligent conduct of a solicitor. |
| Munshi Rasal v Enlighten Furniture Decoration Co Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 1277 | Singapore | Recapitulated the applicable three-step test for directing solicitors to personally bear the costs of the opposing party. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 53, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court |
| O 59 r 8(1)(c) of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| s 409 of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 6 of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| Article 9 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore | Singapore |
| Article 4 of the Constitution | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal Motion
- Judicial Review
- Costs
- Abuse of Process
- Standing
- Frivolous
- Vexatious
- Personal Liability
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Constitution
- Miscarriage of Justice
- Leave Application
- Criminal Review
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Motion
- Costs
- Abuse of Process
- Lawyers for Liberty
- Charles Yeo
- Singapore Court of Appeal
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Civil Procedure
- Constitutional Law
- Costs
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing
- Civil Procedure
- Constitutional Law