Former transport minister S. Iswaran arriving at the Supreme Court on Sept 3, 2024. - ST
SINGAPORE: With his trial due to begin in a week’s time, former transport minister S. Iswaran went to the Court of Appeal on Tuesday (Sept 3) in his third attempt to obtain conditioned statements of every prosecution witness.
A conditioned statement is a mode of giving evidence in a written statement, rather than oral testimony.
Iswaran, 62, is seeking permission from the court to file what is known as a criminal reference – an application asking Singapore’s top court to answer a question of law of public interest.
Under the law, an accused person who wants to file a criminal reference would first need to apply to the Court of Appeal for permission to do so.
It is for the court to decide whether the question is of sufficient public interest to be worth answering.
In Iswaran’s case, he is hoping that the court will give the green light for his lawyers to present arguments that witness statements should be included as part of the prosecution’s disclosure obligations.
The court comprises Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and justices Woo Bih Li and Steven Chong.
Iswaran faces a total of 35 charges, two of which 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 hotel and property tycoon Ong Beng Seng, and mainboard-listed Lum Chang Holdings’ managing director David Lum.
Iswaran is represented by a legal team led by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh.
The defence’s first attempt for a court order that the prosecution should provide conditioned statements was dismissed on June 11 by an assistant registrar.
Under the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), the prosecution must disclose witness statements “that are intended by the prosecution to be admitted at the trial”.
The defence contended that the prosecution is required to provide conditioned statements for every witness that it intends to call at the trial.
The prosecution argued that the law requires it to provide only the conditioned statements that it intends to admit at the trial.
The prosecution said it does not intend to admit any conditioned statements at Iswaran’s trial. No such statements have been recorded, and thus none was provided to the defence.
The defence then filed an application, known as a criminal revision, for a High Court judge to review the assistant registrar’s decision.
On July 19, Justice Vincent Hoong dismissed this second attempt.
The judge said the words of the provision under the CPC are “clear and unambiguous”.
Justice Hoong said the prosecution need only disclose the statements of witnesses that it intends to admit at the trial, and not of every witness the prosecution intends to call. - The Straits Times/ANN
