PRITAM SINGH v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

[2024] SGHC 233 High Court (General Division) 9 September 2024 • HC/CM 41/2024 • 41 min read

8 cases cited (5 SG, 3 foreign)

Catchwords

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Trials — Transfer of cases

Practice Areas

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing

Judges (1)

Hoo Sheau Peng Delivered

Counsel (8)

Andre Jumabhoy LLC Firm Attorney-General's Chambers Firm Andre Darius Jumabhoy Counsel Applicant Ang Cheng Hock Counsel Respondent Eng Zheng Yang Aristotle Emmanuel Counsel Applicant Lu Huiyi Counsel Respondent Norine Tan Counsel Respondent Tan Ben Mathias Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Respondent Pritam Singh Applicant

Case Significance

Pritam Singh v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 233 was decided by Hoo Sheau Peng J in the General Division of the High Court on 9 September 2024, with judgment reserved after a hearing on 26 August 2024. The matter was Criminal Motion No 41 of 2024. The applicant, Mr Pritam Singh, faces two charges under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act (Cap 217, 2000 Rev Ed) for wilfully making a false answer to questions material to the subject of inquiry put to him during examination before Parliament's Committee of Privileges. The judgment records that the applicant has been a Member of Parliament for the Aljunied Group Representation Constituency from 2011, the Secretary-General of the Workers' Party from 2018, and the Leader of the Opposition since 2020.

The catchwords identify the case as concerning criminal procedure and sentencing and the transfer of cases. Relying on s 239(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed), the applicant applied to transfer his case from the State Courts to the General Division of the High Court on the ground that a transfer was "expedient for the ends of justice". The Prosecution objected, submitting the application was without merit. Having considered the parties' written and oral submissions, Hoo Sheau Peng J dismissed the application. The judgment referred to statutes including the Criminal Procedure Code, the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, the Penal Code and the Trustees Act. The applicant was represented by Andre Jumabhoy LLC, including Andre Darius Jumabhoy, while the Public Prosecutor was represented by the Attorney-General's Chambers, including Ang Cheng Hock.

Summary

The applicant, Mr Pritam Singh, who faced two charges under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act for wilfully making a false answer to questions material to the subject of inquiry during examination before Parliament's Committee of Privileges, applied under section 239(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code to transfer his case from the State Courts to the General Division of the High Court on the ground that it was expedient for the ends of justice. The charges arose from evidence he gave to the Committee of Privileges convened to investigate a fellow Member of Parliament's untrue anecdote made during a parliamentary debate. The High Court (Hoo Sheau Peng J) dismissed the application and declined to transfer the matter from the State Courts to the High Court.

What did Pritam Singh v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 233 decide?

Hoo Sheau Peng J dismissed Pritam Singh's application in Criminal Motion No 41 of 2024 to transfer his case from the State Courts to the General Division of the High Court under s 239(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which the Prosecution had opposed as being without merit.

On what basis did Pritam Singh seek to transfer his case in [2024] SGHC 233?

Relying on s 239(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, Pritam Singh sought to transfer his case, involving two charges under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, to the High Court on the ground that transfer was "expedient for the ends of justice".