SINGAPORE — The High Court on Monday (Sept 9) dismissed an application by Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh to have his perjury trial heard there instead of at the State Courts.

Delivering brief remarks on the decision, High Court Judge Hoo Sheau Peng said that she found “no strong public interest considerations” that merit the transfer of the case from the State Courts to the High Court.

Among other things, she emphasised that the court should exercise its power to transfer cases to the High Court only in rare and exceptional cases. 

As part of the High Court’s duty to uphold public trust and confidence, it must guard against unmerited applications to transfer cases to the High Court.

Transfers may lend to the risk of harming public confidence in the fair administration of justice, due to the perception that a supposedly “special judge” or “special court” is being accorded to an accused person, Justice Hoo said.

Singh, 48, who heads the Workers’ Party (WP), is accused of lying to a committee of privileges in Parliament over former Member of Parliament (MP) Raeesah Khan, who had lied about a sexual assault case and accused the police of mishandling the case.

His lawyers made an application on Aug 26 for his case to be heard at the High Court, arguing that there was “a strong public interest” in his case.

In supporting their argument, they made reference to the corruption case involving former transport minister S Iswaran that was also moved to the High Court earlier this year.

Justice Hoo on Monday said that even though Iswaran’s case is not “completely irrelevant”, there were key elements that differentiate between the two cases. 

When approached by reporters outside the courtroom, Singh declined to comment on the outcome of the hearing.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Singh faces two charges of giving false answers to a committee of privileges on Dec 10 and Dec 15 in 2021, which are offences under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.

He pleaded not guilty to them at the State Courts on March 19 this year. 

The charges came more than two years after the committee found that Singh had been untruthful under oath during its hearings over Ms Khan's lies in 2021.

During a hearing on Aug 26 to apply to have Singh’s case transferred to the High Court, his team of lawyers argued that the opposition leader's case would “benefit from the stature of a High Court Judge” and that it is “even more impactful” than Iswaran’s case.

Mr Andre Darius Jumabhoy from his eponymous law firm argued then that since Singh’s and Iswaran’s cases are of “public interest” and they were charged when they were both politicians, they should be afforded the same treatment.

“What we have done is look at the handling of Iswaran’s matter and ask why that is not done for us,” he said at the time.

In reference to Iswaran's case, Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock responded then that there was “strong public interest” for the case to be transferred because there were “a number of charges” under Section 165 of the Penal Code that can be of “wide application”.

Section 165 of the Penal Code forbids public servants from obtaining any valuable thing — for zero or inadequate consideration — from someone involved in any proceeding or business that is transacted by said public servants.

He continued saying that the transfer of Iswaran’s case to the High Court was because of the potential impact of those charges and it “impacts all public servants”.

In Singh’s case, those same considerations do not apply at all and are “completely inapplicable”, Mr Ang added.

When it came to public interest, Mr Ang argued then that the defence’s definition of public interest was “flawed” and that the defence conflated “public interest” with “media interest”.

POLITICIANS NOT TREATED DIFFERENTLY

In her remarks on Monday, Justice Hoo elaborated on why she rejected the key arguments in Singh’s application to move his case to the High Court.

First, the mere fact that an accused person is a political personality does not warrant a transfer, because “there is no justification for treating politicians differently from other accused persons”.

“The fundamental rule is that all accused persons, regardless of their status, are to be treated equally.”

Justice Hoo accepted that there would be public and media interest in Singh’s case given that it relates to parliamentary proceedings, but it does not “carry the applicant’s case very far”.

She noted that the State Courts have been conferred jurisdiction to try all offences under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. However, certain serious offences under the Penal Code may fall outside the State Courts' purview.

“As such, the applicant’s rather sweeping statement that all offences under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act ‘necessarily entail a greater degree of public interest as compared to offences under the Penal Code’ is without merit,” she added.

Justice Hoo also said that she was “not persuaded” by the applicant’s argument that Singh’s trial would have wide-reaching implications given that the interpretation of the specific sub-section of the Act could potentially “extend beyond” how MPs conduct themselves in Parliament.

On the contrary, the section clearly sets out the key elements of the offences, namely a factual one of whether or not an accused wilfully gave false answers before the committee of privileges.

As for Iswaran’s case, it will involve the interpretation of Section 165 of the Penal Code, said the judge.

“The parameters set by the court may provide guidance to all public servants on how they ought to conduct their affairs”, making Iswaran’s case potentially wide-reaching in its impact, she added.

It was previously reported that Singh’s trial at the State Courts was set to begin on Oct 14.

Court records showed that his case will be heard in the chambers at a pre-trial conference on Sept 13.

For any conviction of lying under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, a person could be jailed for up to three years or fined up to S$7,000, or both for each charge.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers earlier said that it would be seeking a fine for each charge if Singh is convicted.