S Iswaran v Public Prosecutor: Joinder of Charges under Criminal Procedure Code

Mr. S Iswaran applied to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore for a joinder of 35 charges against him under ss 133 and 134 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The charges include offences under s 165 and s 204A of the Penal Code, and s 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court, presided over by Vincent Hoong J, allowed the application, ordering a joinder of all charges, finding that the charges were similar in nature and that a single trial would not prejudice the applicant.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Ex Tempore Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Application for joinder of charges by S Iswaran against Public Prosecutor. The court allowed the application, ordering a joinder of all charges.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
S IswaranApplicantIndividualApplication AllowedWonDavinder Singh s/o Amar Singh SC, Navin Shanmugaraj Thevar, Rajvinder Singh Chahal, Sheiffa Safi Shirbeeni
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyApplication DismissedLostTai Wei Shyong SC, Tan Kiat Pheng, Jiang Ke Yue, Kelvin Chong, Goh Qi Shuen

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Vincent HoongJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Davinder Singh s/o Amar Singh SCDavinder Singh Chambers LLC
Navin Shanmugaraj ThevarDavinder Singh Chambers LLC
Rajvinder Singh ChahalDavinder Singh Chambers LLC
Sheiffa Safi ShirbeeniDavinder Singh Chambers LLC
Tai Wei Shyong SCAttorney-General’s Chambers
Tan Kiat PhengAttorney-General’s Chambers
Jiang Ke YueAttorney-General’s Chambers
Kelvin ChongAttorney-General’s Chambers
Goh Qi ShuenAttorney-General’s Chambers

4. Facts

  1. Mr. S Iswaran faces 35 charges, including 24 under s 165 of the Penal Code related to Mr. Ong Beng Seng.
  2. Two charges under s 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act relate to advancing Mr. Ong Beng Seng's business interests.
  3. One charge under s 204A(a) of the Penal Code relates to repaying the cost of a business class flight.
  4. Eight charges under s 165 of the Penal Code relate to Mr. Lum Kok Seng.
  5. The applicant applied for a joinder of all 35 charges.
  6. The prosecution contested the application, arguing that the charges related to Mr. Lum Kok Seng should be tried separately.
  7. The applicant confirmed that a joinder of all 35 charges causes no prejudice or embarrassment to the Defence.

5. Formal Citations

  1. S Iswaran v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 16 of 2024, [2024] SGHC 123
  2. PP v Tan Hor Peow Victor and others, , [2006] SGDC 55
  3. PP v Lim Beng Tai, , [2009] SGDC 448

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) enacted
Alleged offences under s 165 of the Penal Code began
Alleged offences under s 165 of the Penal Code continued
Alleged offences under s 165 of the Penal Code relating to LKS began
Alleged offences under s 165 of the Penal Code relating to LKS continued
Alleged offences under s 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1960 began
Alleged offences under s 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1960 continued
Applicant's business class flight from Doha to Singapore
Alleged offence under s 204A(a) of the Penal Code occurred
Criminal Case Disclosure Conference
Applicant’s Affidavit
Prosecution’s Written Submissions
Applicant’s Reply Submissions
Prosecution’s Reply Submissions
Judgment delivered

7. Legal Issues

  1. Joinder of Charges
    • Outcome: The court allowed the joinder of all 35 charges.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Similarity of offences
      • Prejudice to the accused
    • Related Cases:
      • [1971] 1 AC 29
      • [1970] 1 QB 125
      • [2017] 4 WLR 93
      • [2023] WASCA 187
      • [2019] SGHC 105
      • [2022] SGHC 91
  2. Prerogative of the Public Prosecutor
    • Outcome: The court held that an application for joinder of charges is not within the sole prerogative of the Prosecution and therefore may be made by the Defence.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2020] 1 SLR 64

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Joinder of all charges for a single trial

9. Cause of Actions

  • Violation of s 165 of the Penal Code
  • Violation of s 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
  • Violation of s 204A(a) of the Penal Code

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-GeneralSingapore High CourtYes[2017] 2 SLR 850SingaporeCited for the principle of statutory interpretation, emphasizing the importance of the text and context of a provision.
Lim Chit Foo v PPCourt of AppealYes[2020] 1 SLR 64SingaporeCited to clarify the court's overall control and supervision over proceedings, including the standing down of charges.
Ludlow v Metropolitan Police CommissionerHouse of LordsYes[1971] 1 AC 29England and WalesCited for the legal test to determine whether offences form a series of similar character, requiring both factual and legal similarity.
R v KrayEnglish Court of AppealYes[1970] 1 QB 125England and WalesCited for the principle that a joinder of charges is appropriate if the offences exhibit similar features, allowing them to be conveniently tried together.
R v Williams (Malachi)English Court of AppealYes[2017] 4 WLR 93England and WalesCited for the view that the court takes into account the wider characteristics of the offences to establish whether there was a sufficient nexus between them.
CGF v State of Western AustraliaWestern Australian Court of AppealYes[2023] WASCA 187AustraliaCited for the principle that a sufficient similarity and connection is necessary for offences to form part of a series of offences of the same or a similar character.
PP v Ridhaudin bin BakriHigh CourtYes[2019] SGHC 105SingaporeThe Prosecution relied on this case, but the court found that the reliance was misplaced.
PP v BZTHigh CourtYes[2022] SGHC 91SingaporeCited for allowing a joinder of sexual charges to be tried at a single trial.
Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v PPCourt of AppealYes[2014] 2 SLR 998SingaporeCited for considerations such as proximity of time and place as well as unity of design and purpose when considering whether offences were committed in one transaction.
Tse Po Chung Nathan and another v PPSingapore High CourtYes[1993] 1 SLR(R) 308SingaporeCited for the principle that offences with a clear continuity of action form part of the same transaction and may be joined.
Rajendran s/o Nagarethinam v PPSingapore High CourtYes[2022] 3 SLR 689SingaporeCited as an example where charges under s 204A of the Penal Code were tried with the offences to which the alleged obstruction of the course of justice relates.
PP v Soh Chee Wen and anotherSingapore High CourtYes[2023] SGHC 299SingaporeCited as an example where charges under s 204A of the Penal Code were tried with the offences to which the alleged obstruction of the course of justice relates.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Criminal Procedure Code 2010Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
Prevention of Corruption Act 1960Singapore
Penal Code 1871Singapore
Constitution of the Republic of SingaporeSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Joinder of charges
  • Series of offences
  • Same transaction
  • Prejudice to the accused
  • Public Prosecutor's prerogative
  • Factual similarity
  • Legal similarity
  • Mens rea
  • Actus reus

15.2 Keywords

  • Criminal Procedure Code
  • Penal Code
  • Prevention of Corruption Act
  • Joinder of Charges
  • Singapore
  • Criminal Law

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Procedure
  • Criminal Law
  • Statutory Interpretation

17. Areas of Law

  • Criminal Procedure
  • Criminal Law