Han Li Ying v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of Conditional Warning for Contempt of Court
Ms. Han Li Ying, Kirsten applied to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore for judicial review of a conditional warning issued by the Attorney-General for contempt of court related to a Facebook post. The High Court, presided over by Justice Kwek Mean Luck, dismissed the application, holding that the conditional warning had no legal effect and was therefore not subject to judicial review. The court also dismissed related prayers for a declaration and a mandatory order.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Originating Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application for judicial review of a conditional warning for contempt of court. The court dismissed the application, finding the warning had no legal effect.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Application Dismissed | Won | Dan Pan Xue Wen of Attorney-General’s Chambers Sivakumar s/o Ramasamy of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Han Li Ying, Kirsten | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Kwek Mean Luck | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Dan Pan Xue Wen | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sivakumar s/o Ramasamy | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Too Xing Ji | BMS Law LLC |
4. Facts
- Ms. Han published a Facebook post that the Attorney-General’s Chambers found amounted to contempt of court.
- The Attorney-General’s Chambers decided to issue Ms. Han a conditional warning in lieu of prosecution.
- The Singapore Police Force was requested to convey the conditional warning to Ms. Han.
- Ms. Han was issued a 12-month conditional warning.
- Ms. Han applied for a copy of the First Information Report.
- The Attorney-General’s Chambers stated that no First Information Report had been filed in connection with the warning.
5. Formal Citations
- Han Li Ying Kirsten v Attorney-General, Originating Application No 72 of 2023, [2023] SGHC 137
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Ms. Han published a Facebook post. | |
| The Attorney-General’s Chambers informed the Singapore Police Force of its decision to issue Ms. Han a conditional warning. | |
| DSP Seet contacted Ms. Han via phone call. | |
| Ms. Han called DSP Seet to request a written letter. | |
| DSP Seet sent Ms. Han a letter via email. | |
| Ms. Han received the Warning at Ang Mo Kio Police Division Headquarters. | |
| Ms. Han filed an originating application for permission to commence judicial review in Originating Application No 765 of 2022. | |
| The Singapore Police Force informed Ms. Han via email that they were unable to supply her with the documents she had requested. | |
| The Attorney-General’s Chambers sent a letter to Ms. Han’s lawyers stating that no First Information Report had been filed with the police in connection with the Warning. | |
| Ms. Han was granted leave to withdraw OA 765 and file a new application. | |
| The present OA 72 was filed. | |
| Hearing held. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Susceptibility to Judicial Review
- Outcome: The court held that the conditional warning was not susceptible to judicial review because it had no legal effect.
- Category: Substantive
- Locus Standi
- Outcome: The court held that there was no 'real controversy' between the parties, and therefore the applicant lacked locus standi.
- Category: Procedural
- First Information Report
- Outcome: The court held that there was no First Information Report in respect of the Warning.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Quashing Order
- Declaration
- Mandatory Order
9. Cause of Actions
- Judicial Review
10. Practice Areas
- Judicial Review
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 for judicial review. |
| Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General | N/A | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 476 | Singapore | Cited for the requirement of a 'real controversy' for locus standi. |
| Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 112 | Singapore | Cited for the test for sufficient interest in a matter. |
| Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v Attorney-General | N/A | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 1370 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a warning without legal effect is not susceptible to judicial review. |
| Comptroller of Income Tax v ACC | N/A | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 1189 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a quashing order will only lie against decisions which have some form of actual or ostensible legal effect. |
| GCO v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2019] 3 SLR 1402 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that conditional warnings do not have legal effect. |
| Teo Seng Tiong v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 642 | Singapore | Affirmed that stern warnings, whether conditional or not, have no legal effect. |
| Harun bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2009] 3 MLJ 337 | Malaysia | Cited regarding assurances not to prosecute. |
| R v Croydon Justices, ex parte Dean | N/A | Yes | [1993] QB 769 | England | Cited regarding assurances that the prosecution would not prosecute. |
| R v Bloomfield | N/A | Yes | 1 Cr App R 135 | England | Cited regarding assurances that the prosecution would not prosecute. |
| R v Abu Hamza | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 WLR 226 | England | Cited for the proposition that it could be an abuse of process to prosecute someone who relied on an unequivocal assurance that no prosecution would be brought against that person. |
| Husdi v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [1979] 2 MLJ 304 | Malaysia | Cited regarding complaints made to the Magistrate. |
| Ho Soo Tong and others v Ho Soo Fong and others | N/A | Yes | [2023] SGHC 90 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that parties are bound by their pleadings. |
| V Nithia (co-administratix of the estate of Ponnusamy Sivapakiam, deceased) v Buthmanaban s/o Vaithilingam and another | N/A | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 1422 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that parties are bound by their pleadings. |
| OMG Holdings Pte Ltd v Pos Ad Sdn Bhd | N/A | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 231 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that parties are bound by their pleadings. |
| Tan Keaw Chong v Chua Tiong Guan and another | N/A | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 374 | Singapore | Cited regarding exceptional circumstances where the court may make an order on an unpleaded claim without an amendment of pleadings. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 24 r 5 of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| O 9 rule 14(1) read with (7) of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Conditional Warning
- Judicial Review
- First Information Report
- Contempt of Court
- Locus Standi
15.2 Keywords
- Judicial Review
- Conditional Warning
- Contempt of Court
- Administrative Law
- Singapore
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Administrative Law | 75 |
| Contempt of Court | 70 |
| Criminal Law | 50 |
| Criminal Procedure | 50 |
| Civil Procedure | 25 |
| Constitutional Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Administrative Law
- Contempt of Court
- Judicial Review