SINGAPORE, May 9 — The High Court yesterday approved an application filed by lawyers for former transport minister S. Iswaran to have all 35 charges against him heard in a single trial, rather than in two separate trials as proposed by the prosecution.
Among other arguments in his application, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, Iswaran’s lead defence lawyer, had said that his client was dealing with “very close and dear friends” in the two sets of charges, relating to property tycoon Ong Beng Seng and businessman David Lum Kok Seng.
Singh opposed the holding of separate trials for the initial 27 charges relating to Iswaran’s dealings with Ong and the subsequent eight charges relating to his dealings with Lum. The lawyer said that the question of Iswaran’s friendship with both men would be “highly relevant”.
“To ask for (the trials) to be separated, is to disadvantage the defence — and I can’t think of a greater prejudice,” Singh told the court on Wednesday.
The prosecution had proposed that the trial of the eight charges over Iswaran’s dealings with Lum, managing director of Lum Chang Building Contractors, be heard first.
Singh submitted that the prosecution had sought to do so in order to preview the defence in that trial ahead of a separate trial of the charges related to Ong, which he argued was “the heart of the case”.
The 27 original charges handed to Iswaran on January 18 were mostly related to alleged bribery and corruption, and were linked to his interactions with Malaysian billionaire Ong, who owns the rights to the Formula One Singapore Grand Prix.
The eight other charges dealt on March 25 included charges for allegedly obtaining a range of valuable items — including bottles of whisky, a Brompton bicycle and golf clubs — from Lum, whose firm is involved in construction works on Tanah Merah MRT Station.
In response, Deputy Attorney-General Tai Wei Shyong said that the prosecution had the prerogative to decide which charges to proceed on in criminal proceedings.
He also offered a “simple explanation” to why the prosecution had tendered the charges separately.
Tai said that the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) did not report to the Attorney-General’s Chambers, and that CPIB conducted investigations independently in accordance with its mandates.
When the original charges associated with Ong were tendered in court on January 18, the investigations on the charges associated with Lum were still ongoing.
These investigations were completed more than a month after the charges associated with Mr Ong were tendered in court.
Thereafter, the prosecution tendered the eight added charges on March 25, as soon as it could.
“In an ideal world, all charges should have been tendered together,” Tai said, adding that this was, however, not possible given the investigation timeline.
Later, when the added charges were tendered, the prosecution decided to proceed with those first.
Responding to Singh’s drawing of parallels between the two sets of charges associated with Ong and Lum, Tai argued that there were no factual connections — since they relate to accepting different gifts in different contexts.
The charges also relate to different contracts: One with the Land Transport Authority, and the other with the Formula One Singapore Grand Prix.
Tai added that the only way to proceed with a joint trial would be if Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code was satisfied.
Section 133 states that when a person is accused of two or more offences, the person may be charged with and tried at one trial for any number of those offences, if the offences are the same or similar.
In his submissions, Singh also referred to section 6.4 of the ministerial code of conduct, which states that the code shall not prevent ministers or members of their families from accepting:
• Gifts from family or personal friends in a genuinely personal capacity,
• Gifts clearly unconnected with the ministerial office, or
• Gifts which would not normally be regarded as influencing or tending to influence the minister in the performance of his duties, such as occasional and inexpensive gifts of calendars and office diaries, and conventional hospitality on a modest scale that is normal in the circumstances
Iswaran, 61, was represented by Singh, Navin Thevar and Rajvinder Singh of Davinder Singh Chambers.
Judge’s remarks
In delivering his ruling late on Wednesday, Justice Vincent Hoong noted in his approval of the application that Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code was satisfied, which made it “convenient” for the charges to be jointly heard in a single trial.
Justice Hoong also referred to Section 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which offers the provision for a separate trial if the court is of the view that an accused may be prejudiced or embarrassed when being tried at a single trial for more than one offence.
In this case, however, the defence had argued that Iswaran would be prejudiced should the application be dismissed, which showed all the more that he would not be prejudiced in joining the trials.
With these points in mind, Justice Hoong said that “reasonable concerns” had been raised, and that he would allow the application for a joint trial.
Iswaran had his bail extended on the current terms and conditions.
He will return to court on May 14 for a criminal case disclosure conference. — TODAY
