S. Iswaran leaving the High Court on July 5, 2024. - ST FILE
SINGAPORE: A High Court judge has rejected a bid by former transport minister S. Iswaran to compel the prosecution to provide conditioned statements of all 56 witnesses it has lined up for his upcoming trial on 35 charges.
A conditioned statement is a mode of giving evidence in a written statement, rather than oral testimony, often to expedite court proceedings.
The prosecution has said that since it does not intend to rely on conditioned statements for Iswaran’s trial, none were recorded from the witnesses, and, thus, none were provided to the defence.
In other words, all the prosecution witnesses will be put on the stand to give oral testimony through questioning, first by the prosecution and then the defence.
On July 19, in dismissing Iswaran’s application, Justice Vincent Hoong found that the law requires the prosecution to provide conditioned statements of witnesses only when it intends to admit such statements at the trial.
The judge said the words of the relevant provision under the Criminal Procedure Code are “clear and unambiguous” – that the prosecution need only disclose the statements of witnesses that it intends to admit at the trial.
“Conversely, if the prosecution does not intend to admit any such statements at the trial, it is not required to file those statements,” he said.
Justice Hoong noted that the purpose of the disclosure in criminal proceedings is to provide a regime for early and reciprocal disclosure of the parties’ respective cases, with the prosecution first putting its cards on the table, followed by the defence.
“One of the criminal case disclosure regime’s imperatives is also to prevent the accused from shaping his defence to meet the prosecution’s case. Thus, the parties’ disclosure obligations were sequential,” said the judge.
Justice Hoong added that he was unable to accept defence arguments that there was an abuse of process or serious injustice caused to Iswaran in this case.
The judge noted that the prosecution had disclosed various material to the defence.
These include 66 statements recorded from Iswaran, which totalled 1,156 pages, and numerous exhibits such as e-mails, messages, Formula One complimentary request forms and other relevant documents.
The judge said: “The applicant has received sufficient information that discloses the factual premise of the charges against him, and it is not the law that the prosecution must detail its intended case at the trial to the point of informing the applicant of exactly what each witness will testify, which exhibit each witness will give evidence on, and what the evidence on each exhibit will entail.”
Iswaran declined comment when approached outside the courtroom after the verdict.
His trial is scheduled to start on Aug 13.
Iswaran’s lawyers, led by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, had argued before Justice Hoong on July 5 that the prosecution should provide the conditioned statements of all its witnesses as part of its pre-trial disclosure obligation under the law.
The prosecution, led by Deputy Attorney-General Tai Wei Shyong, argued that the law only requires the prosecution to provide conditioned statements that are intended to be used during the trial.
The prosecution added that it had disclosed “more than enough” to the defence.
The material it had disclosed includes 37 statements recorded from seven witnesses during investigations by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau.
Among these prosecution witnesses are Iswaran’s wife Kay Mary Taylor; hotel and property tycoon Ong Beng Seng; and managing director of mainboard-listed Lum Chang Holdings David Lum.
Of the 35 charges Iswaran faces, two are for corruption involving about $166,000.
Another 32 counts are for obtaining items worth more than $237,000 as a public servant, while one is for obstructing the course of justice.
The charges relate to his dealings with Ong and Lum.
The application before Justice Hoong was the second time the defence team sought a court order for the prosecution to provide conditioned statements.
The first attempt was dismissed on June 11 by an assistant registrar, who concluded that the law did not require conditioned statements to be recorded for every witness that the prosecution intended to call at the trial.
The defence then filed an application, known as a criminal revision, for a High Court judge to review the assistant registrar’s decision. - The Straits Times/ANN
