https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3901-6846
![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The criminal disclosure regime in Singapore has come a long way from the ‘dark age of disclosure’ prior to the disclosure obligations set out in the Criminal Procedure Code and Muhammad bin Kadar v Public Prosecutor [2011] SGCA 32. While cases such as Public Prosecutor v Li Weiming [2014] SGCA 7 and Lee Siew Boon Winston v Public Prosecutor [2015] SGHC 186 have seen some judicial oversight of the disclosure obligations, its extent has remained substantially the same. However, the decision in Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public Prosecutor [2020] SGCA 25 has fundamentally increased the Prosecution’s disclosure obligations. This case note discusses these changes and their impact on the accused and Prosecutors.
Acknowledgement
The views expressed above are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of the institutions with which I am affiliated.
Notes
1 [2011] SGCA 32 (Court of Appeal of Singapore (SGCA)) (Kadar).
2 [2014] SGCA 7 (SGCA) (Li Weiming).
3 [2015] SGHC 186 (High Court of Singapore (SGHC)) (Lee Siew Boon Winston).
4 [2020] SGCA 25 (SGCA) (Nabill).
5 ibid [50].
6 Michael Hor, ‘The Future of Singapore's Criminal Process’ (2013) 25 Singapore Academy of Law Journal 847, 862. See also Amarjeet Singh, ‘Equality of Arms — The Need for Prosecutorial Discovery’ (2005) (September) Singapore Law Gazette.
7 ibid. For the pre-2010 position, see Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (Singapore), Chapter XVII; for the position after 2010, where the Preliminary Inquiry was re-named the Committal Hearing, see Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 224, 2012 Rev Ed) (Singapore), Part X Division 2. Note that further amendments in 2018 have done away with this entirely in favour of a streamlined transmission procedure—see ss 46, 47 Criminal Justice Reform Act 2018 (Singapore) and Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (19 Mar 2018) vol 94 (Ms Indranee Rajah, Senior Minister of State for Law).
8 Hor (n 6) 862.
9 [1986] SGHC 13 (SGHC) (Kulwant).
10 ibid [50].
11 [2000] SGHC 171 (SGHC) (Selvarajan James).
12 Kulwant (n 9) [19].
13 Selvarajan James (n 11).
14 For the State Courts, see Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed), Part IX Division 2; for the High Court, see Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 64, 2012 Rev Ed), s 211A.
15 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 64, 2012 Rev Ed) (Singapore), s 162(1).
16 ibid s 165(1).
17 Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (19 May 2011) vol 87, col 563 (Mr K Shanmugam, Minister for Law).
18 Kadar (n 1).
19 ibid [166]–[167].
20 ibid [98].
21 ibid [83]–[92].
22 ibid [113].
23 ibid [105]–[112].
24 Muhammad bin Kadar v Public Prosecutor [2011] SGCA 44 (SGCA).
25 ibid [14].
26 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 64, 2012 Rev Ed), s 169.
27 Li Weiming (n 2).
28 ibid [34], [36].
29 ibid [40]–[58].
30 Lee Siew Boon Winston (n 3).
31 ibid [167]–[169]. This is consistent with the well-established position in Ramalingam Ravinthran v A-G [2012] SGCA 2 (SGCA).
32 Lee Siew Boon Winston (n 3) [167]–[169].
33 ibid [172]–[175].
34 ibid [180]–[182].
35 ibid [162].
36 Nabill (n 4) [39]–[47].
37 ibid [70].
38 ibid.
39 ibid [46].
40 ibid.
41 ibid.
42 ibid [39], [44]–[47].
43 ibid [71].
44 ibid [39]–[47].
45 ibid [50].
46 ibid [46].
47 Singapore Parliamentary Debates (n 17).
48 Nabill (n 4) [57]–[63].
49 Diehm v DPP (Nauru) [2013] HCA 42 [63] (High Court of Australia (HCA)) (Diehm).
50 [1983] HCA 42 (HCA).
51 [1984] HCA 38 (HCA). See Diehm (n 49) [64]–[65].
52 Diehm (n 49) [60]–[61].
53 Nabill (n 4) [66], [70]–[71].
54 ibid [67]–[70].
55 ibid [71].
56 ibid [76].
57 ibid.
58 [2020] SGHC 175 (SGHC) (Lim Hong Liang).
59 Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed); Public Prosecutor v Lim Hong Liang and Ong Hock Chye [2019] SGDC 127 (District Court of Singapore (SGDC)) (Ong Hock Chye).
60 Lim Hong Liang (n 58) [3].
61 Ong Hock Chye (n 59) [76]–[77].
62 Lim Hong Liang (n 58) [1].
63 ibid [17].
64 Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) (Singapore).
65 Lim Hong Liang (n 58) [24]–[28].
66 ibid [29].
67 ibid [25].
68 Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 (Court of Appeal of England and Wales) (EWCA).
69 Kadar (n 1) [120].
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Kenny Yang
Kenny Yang is a Research Scholar at The University of Western Australia and an Advocate, Solicitor and Deputy Public Prosecutor in Singapore. He holds degrees from Murdoch University (LLB (First Class)) and Australian National University (LLM (High Distinction)).