Workers' Party (WP) secretary-general Pritam Singh, 48, has failed in his bid to have his case heard in the High Court, CNA reported on Sep. 9, 2024.

Singh, 48, faces two charges of lying to a Committee of Privileges over Raeesah Khan's case.

The trial has been fixed for a total of 16 days, with the first segment scheduled for Oct. 14 to 18, and is slated to be presided over by Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan.

Singh is represented by lawyers Aristotle Emmanuel Eng Zhen Yang and Andre Darius Jumabhoy from Andre Jumabhoy LLC.

Background on the bid

Jumabhoy and Eng referred to the case of S Iswaran, whose case was transferred to the High Court.

In that case, the prosecution applied for the transfer, and the defence agreed to the transfer.

Singh's lawyers added that there was a "strong public interest" for the case to be heard in the High Court, arguing that Singh's case is potentially more impactful than Iswaran's, as the former was charged under an act that extends to all members of parliament.

The prosecution opposed the application, saying that Iswaran's case had been referred to the High Court under a different section.

Deputy attorney-general and senior counsel Ang Cheng Hock said there can be no comparison between the two cases.

He said the reason why the prosecution asked for Iswaran’s case to be transferred was the potential impact of the interpretation of the provision, which would impact civil servants in a wide range of different roles, and that these considerations do not apply in Singh's case.

In Singh's case, the sole issue is whether the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that Singh had lied while giving answers to the committee, which Ang described as a "purely factual inquiry".

He clarified that "public interest" refers to what is in the public good, and not the fact that members of the public are interested in a case.

Background of Singh's application

Singh's application was initially made under Section 240 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Ang said.

The prosecution then said they were "unable to accede to this request".

Ang said that at this point, Singh and his lawyers should have applied for a judicial review of the prosecution's decision.

Instead, he pointed out that Singh's lawyers filed a criminal motion under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code instead.

Ang said that under that section, Singh would need to show that he would be unlikely to obtain a fair and impartial trial by the State Courts.

Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code states that the High Court may order a transfer for any of three reasons:

1. A fair and impartial trial cannot be had in any State Court.
2. Some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise.
3. A transfer of the case is expedient for the ends of justice or is required by the Criminal Procedure Code or any other written law.

Judge's response

Justice Hoo Sheau Peng found no strong public interest considerations for the transfer.

She said the "fundamental rule is that all accused persons" are to be "treated equally" when it was argued that Singh's status as a politician heightened the public interest considerations.

Justice Hoo said: "There's no justification for treating politicians differently from other accused persons."

She said the power of the court to transfer criminal cases from the State Courts to the High Court must be exercised only "in rare and exceptional circumstances".

Moreover, the judge said transferring the case "certainly does not assist the applicant in the way" Singh suggests.

She emphasised that the potentially wide-reaching impact of Iswaran's trial is the key distinction between the two cases.

In Singh's case, the charges against him "merely raise factual issues", where it is to be determined if he wilfully gave false testimony before the parliamentary committee, the judge said.

Justice Hoo also rejected Singh’s argument that a transfer to the High Court would mean a direct appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The argument was that this would “allow the most senior judges in the land to review the evidence and give finality to the serious allegations” against him, The Straits Times reported.

An applicant cannot earn an automatic right of appeal to the Court of Appeal through a transfer of his case to the High Court, the judge said.

The judge also addressed the allegations regarding the ability of the State Courts to handle cases of this nature, regarding certain “ambiguous statements” that Singh had made in his affidavit.

For example, Singh said his case would “benefit from the stature of a High Court Judge”, who would not be “swayed by the political atmospherics that surround this matter”.

The judge noted that the defence has clarified that they are not making such allegations and said that said that unsubstantiated allegations have the potential to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

She also emphasised that parties before the court must be mindful when making statements of such nature.

Background

Singh is facing two charges.

This was after he allegedly wilfully gave a false answer on Dec 10, 2021, and Dec 15, 2021, in the public hearing room at Parliament House.

This was during an inquiry before the Committee of Privileges, pertaining to Raeesah Khan's case.

The former MP had lied over a sexual assault case and accused the police of mishandling it.

Singh allegedly testified falsely.

He said he had wanted Khan to clarify what she said in parliament about accompanying a rape victim to a police station, and that he spoke to Khan as he wanted to convey to her that she had to clarify what she said over the same issue.

If convicted of lying under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, he could be jailed for up to three years, fined up to S$7,000, or both per charge.

The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) previously said it would be seeking a fine for each of Singh's charges if he is convicted.

Top photo via Shin Min Daily News