Iswaran fails on third attempt to present all witness statements

While the Chief Justice said he understood this, he added: “My problem is that the wording of the Act (in section 214(1)(d)) is not a moving target. The wording of the Act was chosen by Parliament and it limits what the court can order.”

He continued: “To be honest, Mr Singh, if I may come straight to the point, I do not see how we can sustain the allegations you have made about the interpretation of section 214(1)(d) in the text of section 214.”

He added that he was finding it difficult to find a legal basis that would accommodate the much broader scope of disclosure that you had in mind.

Disclosure requires parties to disclose information and documents to the opposing party in the context of a case and court hearing.

Mr Singh then showed the court a section which was repealed along with the pre-trial hearings and replaced by the current disclosure regime in criminal cases, which requires that evidence and information be disclosed to the defence before a trial.

He said that compared to the previous preliminary investigation provisions, his client now effectively had fewer rights because he had less access to the prosecution's evidence under disclosure requirements in criminal cases.

Judge Chong told Mr Singh that his argument was “not realistic” because if the prosecution had the option to exclude certain statements, it would be “shooting its own foot”.

Chief Justice Menon said Singh was asking the court to “effectively work out a disclosure system” that would be consistent with the procedure followed in the past during preliminary investigations, “and that is a danger if Parliament has not addressed it”.

Instead, Section 214 of the US Act set out what Parliament intended with the new criminal disclosure regime. It sets out what the prosecution must include in its indictment to present to the defence – including what the prosecution intends to admit at trial.

In denying the motion, the three-judge court noted that during the hearing the defense had attempted to “reframe” one of the legal questions it had raised.

Four conditions must be met before a legal question can be referred to the Court of Appeal.

The judges focused on only one of the conditions – that the question must be a question of law of public interest. They said it was clear to them that the first question was not a question of law of public interest and that the law could not be read in the way the defense proposed to interpret it.

The judges also said that the second question, which Mr Singh attempted to “rephrase” during the court proceedings, did not raise a legal question of public interest.

The court found that the two systems Singh attempted to compare to support his argument were not comparable and that the current system of disclosure of information in criminal cases was entirely different.

The application was rejected without the court asking the public prosecutor to comment.

Iswaran resigned from his government posts two days before he was first charged in January. He had previously been placed on leave pending the conclusion of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) investigation.

If convicted of obtaining a valuable item as a public servant, Iswaran could face a prison sentence of up to two years, a fine, or both.

If convicted of corrupt practices under the Prevention of Corruption Act, he could face a prison sentence of up to seven years, a fine of up to S$100,000, or both.

If convicted of obstruction of justice, he could face a prison sentence of up to seven years, a fine, or both.