Convictions quashed on application of Singapore Attorney General’s Chambers

An interesting case was heard by the Singapore High Court in October, 2013. The Singapore Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) made an application to the High Court to review and set aside the conviction of Thomas Tay, who had been sentenced six years ago under the Securities and Futures Act. The High Court quashed Tay’s convictions and returned him the $240 000 fine he had paid.

The AGC had applied for a review of Tay’s case based on the acquittals of other individuals linked to Tay’s case.

This is an interesting case of criminal revision being initiated by the Singapore AGC, instead of by the Court or the accused. Based on Singapore’s written laws (as opposed to common law), a criminal case that has exhausted the appeals process can presently only be revisited based on S. 400 (1) of Singapore’s Criminal Procedure Code. This provision allows the High Court to study the record of criminal proceedings brought before any Subordinate Court to satisfy itself of “the correctness, legality or propriety of any judgment, sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of those proceedings.” Note that under S. 400 (1), this ability to review cases is limited to the High Court and only applies to cases previously heard before Subordinate Courts. S. 400 (1) therefore does not cover many serious offences which carry severe penalties and fall within the High Court’s original jurisdiction. It was fortunate that Tay’s case fell within the narrow limits of S. 400.

Though it is encouraging that the AGC took the initiative to apply for a review in the Tay case, and though the Singapore Court of Appeal has recognised the possibility that it may review cases to prevent wrongful convictions, the Tay case shows that there is need for legislature to be passed in Singapore that clearly recognises the ability Singapore Courts to review criminal cases to prevent wrongful convictions or serious injustices, regardless of the court before which the case was first heard and regardless of the lapsing of appeal timelines.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s