[An extract of Mr. J B Jeyaretnam's letter dated 26th September 1997 addressed to The Registrar, Supreme Court, Singapore, and annexures] 
 
 
Our Ref: JBJ/TLH 
26th September 1997


The Registrar
Supreme Court
Singapore



Dear Sir

 

Re: Civil Appeals Nos. 63 & 64 of 1997
111 - 121 and 135 of 1997
---------------------------------------------------------- 

I have been asked by Mr. Charles Gray, QC to ask you to place before the Judges of the Court of Appeal the attached note. Three copies are attached for the Judges. 

Attached also is a note from me, as Junior Counsel, in reply to Mr. Shanmugam's statement after the close of Mr. Gray's final submission, that a report made to the police was a public document and that there was nothing wrong in Mr. Goh Chok Tong obtaining the report from the police. Three copies of my note are also attached.

I shall be pleased if you will place my note as well before the Judges of the Court of Appeal. 


Yours faithfully
 

Sgd

J B Jeyaretnam 

c.c. All Solicitors for the Respondents

 

CIVIL APPEALS NOS: 63 & 64 OF 1997
111 - 121 OF 1997
135 OF 1997


NOTE FROM COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT

----------------------------------------------

Counsel, Davinder Singh SC, intervened in the course of the argument of Charles Gray, QC, to dispute the claim of the latter that a worldwide pre-judgment Mareva injunction is not unprecedented in a libel action. Mr. Singh claimed such a case is referred to in CHOHAN v SAGGAR AND ANOTHER.

This is not so. The judgment in the libel action in the case referred to in Chohan v Saggar was dated 21st March 1985 : see CHOHAN v SAGGAR (1994) 1 BCLC at 708h. The Mareva injunction was not granted until 4th February 1988, years after the judgment : See (1993) BCLC at 664c. 

Charles Gray, QC

26th September 1997


------------------------------

 

CIVIL APPEALS NOS: 63 & 64 OF 1997
111 - 121 OF 1997
135 OF 1997


NOTE FROM JUNIOR COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT

----------------------------------------------


Mr Shanmugam claimed that a report made to the police of the commission of a crime (see section 115 of the Criminal Procedure Code) is a public document, implying thereby that any member of the public may inspect it and take a copy thereof. He says therefore there was nothing wrong in Mr Goh Chok Tong obtaining a copy.

This is not so.

A report is only a public document for the purpose of its admission in any proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Code. (See section 117 of the CPC which authorises a certified true copy admissible in court without the production of the original). 

It is not the practice of the police to release to any member of the public any report to the police. However, if the person against whom the report has been made is charged in court, then the police, at the request of the person or his Solicitors and upon payment of the fees prescribed under the law, will furnish the report. Clearly this is to enable the defence to tender the report in court, if the prosecution does not. 

Mr. Goh Chok Tong's evidence in the proceedings in Suit No 244 of 1997 said that he had told the Minister for Home Affairs to send him the report immediately it was filed. The Minister for Home Affairs was not the person against whom the report was made and he therefore stands in the position of a member of the public. 



J B Jeyaretnam

26th September 1997