Kong Swee Eng v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Review Application for Corruption Charges
Kong Swee Eng applied to the High Court of Singapore for leave to review the decision in Public Prosecutor v Kong Swee Eng, where she was convicted on eight corruption charges. The High Court, presided over by Kannan Ramesh J, dismissed the application, finding that the new evidence presented did not meet the requirements for review under the Criminal Procedure Code and did not conclusively demonstrate a miscarriage of justice.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Criminal review application concerning corruption charges against Kong Swee Eng. The court dismissed the application, finding no miscarriage of justice.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed | Won | Jiang Ke-Yue of Attorney-General’s Chambers Dhiraj G Chainani of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jasmin Kaur of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Kong Swee Eng | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Kannan Ramesh | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Jiang Ke-Yue | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Dhiraj G Chainani | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jasmin Kaur | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sunil Sudheesan | Quahe Woo & Palmer LLC |
| Khoo Hui-Hui Joyce | Quahe Woo & Palmer LLC |
| Ngiam Hian Theng | Quahe Woo & Palmer LLC |
| Diana (Yan Xianting) | Quahe Woo & Palmer LLC |
4. Facts
- Kong Swee Eng applied for leave to review her conviction on eight corruption charges.
- The application was based on two statements from Wong, a former managing director at JSPL.
- Kong argued Wong's statements supported the existence of a 'special relationship' with JSPL.
- The Prosecution argued the statements were not new evidence and did not support the 'special relationship'.
- The High Court found the evidence could have been adduced earlier with reasonable diligence.
- The High Court also found the statements did not conclusively show a miscarriage of justice.
5. Formal Citations
- Kong Swee Eng v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 105 of 2021, [2022] SGHC 50
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Application made by Kong Swee Eng | |
| Oral grounds given convicting Kong | |
| Full grounds delivered | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Criminal Review
- Outcome: The court found that the requirements for criminal review were not met and dismissed the application.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Sufficiency of evidence
- Miscarriage of justice
- Related Cases:
- [2020] 2 SLR 1175
- [2021] 2 SLR 860
- [2020] 2 SLR 1364
- [2021] SGCA 118
- Corruption
- Outcome: The court found that the new evidence did not negate the mental element of the offence.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Corrupt gratification
- Inducement or reward
- Objective corrupt element
- Subjective guilty knowledge
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 4 SLR 1264
8. Remedies Sought
- Review of conviction
9. Cause of Actions
- Criminal Review
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Corruption
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Leng Kah Poh | High Court | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 1264 | Singapore | Cited to establish that the Prosecution had to show that there was an objectively corrupt element in the transaction which Kong was subjectively aware of. |
| Public Prosecutor v Kong Swee Eng | State Courts | Yes | [2020] SGDC 140 | Singapore | Cited for the Judge's finding that Kong had met her evidential burden with regard to the existence of the special relationship, and that the evidential burden had shifted to the Prosecution to rebut it which it failed to do. |
| Public Prosecutor v Kong Swee Eng | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 6 | Singapore | Cited as the decision being reviewed, where the appeal was allowed in part and Kong was convicted on eight of the charges. |
| Kreetharan s/o Kathireson v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 1175 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the applicant must disclose a legitimate basis for review. |
| Rahmat bin Karimon v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 860 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the applicant must disclose a legitimate basis for review and that it is necessary to examine whether the sufficiency and miscarriage of justice requirements have been satisfied. |
| Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 1364 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the applicant must disclose a legitimate basis for review. |
| Murugesan a/l Arumugam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 118 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the applicant must disclose a legitimate basis for review and that it is necessary to examine whether the sufficiency and miscarriage of justice requirements have been satisfied. |
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Cited to consider the purpose underpinning section 259 of the Criminal Procedure Code. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Shanmugam Manohar | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 201 | Singapore | Cited for the two related purposes underlining section 259 of the Criminal Procedure Code. |
| Chan Sze Ying v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2948 (Lee Chuen T’ng, intervener) | High Court | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 841 | Singapore | Cited to define hearsay evidence. |
| Soon Peck Wah v Woon Che Chye | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 430 | Singapore | Cited to define hearsay evidence. |
| Lim Hong Liang v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2020] 5 SLR 1015 | Singapore | Cited for the observation that the various limbs of section 259(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code are targeted at the use of the contents of the statement, rather than the fact that the statement was given. |
| Mohammad Yusof bin Jantan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 82 | Singapore | Cited for the summary dismissal of the application. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Criminal Procedure Rules 2018 |
| Rules 11(2)(a)(iii)(iv) and (b)(iii)(iv) |
| CPR r 11(2)(a)(v) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(5)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 259 of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal review
- Corruption
- Special relationship
- Strategic supplier
- Miscarriage of justice
- Evidential burden
- Reasonable diligence
- Investigative statements
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal review
- Corruption
- Singapore
- High Court
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Prevention of Corruption Act
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Prevention of Corruption Act | 90 |
| Criminal Review | 85 |
| Leave for review | 80 |
| Criminal Procedure | 80 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Sentencing | 70 |
| Evidence | 60 |
| Contract Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Corruption