PoliticalSG

Mah Kiat Seng v Attorney-General and Others: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Mah Kiat Seng v Attorney-General and Others (view source)

Revision as of 20:14, 8 February 2025

1 byte removed ,  8 February
m
AWB add cat events
Visual
No edit summary
m (AWB add cat events)
 
Line 42: Line 42:
In dismissing the third motion, the Court of Appeal stressed the importance of finality in litigation:<blockquote>“We cannot afford to have litigation that continues indefinitely; that would place an unbearable strain on our legal system” ([2021] SGCA 79 at [74]).</blockquote>Despite cautioning Mah against further applications, the court did not impose costs due to his status as a layperson but issued a verbal warning about the consequences of vexatious litigation.
In dismissing the third motion, the Court of Appeal stressed the importance of finality in litigation:<blockquote>“We cannot afford to have litigation that continues indefinitely; that would place an unbearable strain on our legal system” ([2021] SGCA 79 at [74]).</blockquote>Despite cautioning Mah against further applications, the court did not impose costs due to his status as a layperson but issued a verbal warning about the consequences of vexatious litigation.


== '''Discovery of Documents in Mah Kiat Seng’s Case''' ==
== Discovery of Documents in Mah Kiat Seng’s Case ==


==== Background on Discovery Issues ====
==== Background on Discovery Issues ====
Line 54: Line 54:
==== Findings on Discovery ====
==== Findings on Discovery ====


===== '''Scope of Section 126 of the Evidence Act''' =====
===== Scope of Section 126 of the Evidence Act =====
The court ruled that video recordings do not fall under the definition of "communications" as envisaged by Section 126 of the EA<ref>https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2021_SGHC_202</ref>.
The court ruled that video recordings do not fall under the definition of "communications" as envisaged by Section 126 of the EA.<ref>https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2021_SGHC_202</ref>  


Justice Philip Jeyaretnam explained that Section 126 protects verbal or written communications made to public officers in confidence but does not extend to video recordings of police interactions unless they directly capture a protected communication.
Justice Philip Jeyaretnam explained that Section 126 protects verbal or written communications made to public officers in confidence but does not extend to video recordings of police interactions unless they directly capture a protected communication.


===== '''Application of Public Interest Immunity''' =====
===== Application of Public Interest Immunity =====
The court held that the government could invoke '''common law public interest immunity''' to justify withholding the recordings. This doctrine allows the government to withhold evidence if its disclosure would harm public interests, such as law enforcement confidentiality or the safety of individuals.
The court held that the government could invoke '''common law public interest immunity''' to justify withholding the recordings. This doctrine allows the government to withhold evidence if its disclosure would harm public interests, such as law enforcement confidentiality or the safety of individuals.


===== '''Conditional Disclosure''' =====
===== Conditional Disclosure =====
To balance the need for justice with public interest concerns, the court ordered limited discovery:
To balance the need for justice with public interest concerns, the court ordered limited discovery:


Line 74: Line 74:
----These findings facilitated Mah’s access to evidence critical to his claims while addressing concerns about the disclosure of sensitive information.
----These findings facilitated Mah’s access to evidence critical to his claims while addressing concerns about the disclosure of sensitive information.


== '''Court of Appeal Decision to Reopen Mah Kiat Seng’s Case''' ==
== Court of Appeal Decision to Reopen Mah Kiat Seng’s Case ==
Following the dismissal of his claims in the lower courts, Mah Kiat Seng filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal after discovering new evidence. This evidence, including body-worn camera (BWC) footage and other recordings, became pivotal in challenging the veracity of the police accounts and the legality of his detention under Section 7 of the '''Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act (MHCTA)'''.  
Following the dismissal of his claims in the lower courts, Mah Kiat Seng filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal after discovering new evidence. This evidence, including body-worn camera (BWC) footage and other recordings, became pivotal in challenging the veracity of the police accounts and the legality of his detention under Section 7 of the '''Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act (MHCTA)'''.  


Line 98: Line 98:


== High Court Judgement Overview ==
== High Court Judgement Overview ==
The General Division of the High Court, led by Justice Philip Jeyaretnam, delivered judgement on 19 January 2023. <ref>https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2023_SGHC_14</ref>
The General Division of the High Court, led by Justice Philip Jeyaretnam, delivered judgement on 19 January 2023.<ref>https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2023_SGHC_14</ref>


The court analysed the evidence, the legal framework of the MHCTA, and the conduct of the police officers involved, ultimately finding Rosli to have acted in bad faith.
The court analysed the evidence, the legal framework of the MHCTA, and the conduct of the police officers involved, ultimately finding Rosli to have acted in bad faith.
Line 139: Line 139:
==== Quantum of Costs ====
==== Quantum of Costs ====


===== '''Costs Payable to Mah''' =====
===== Costs Payable to Mah =====
As a litigant in person, Mah’s costs were assessed under '''Order 59 Rule 18A of the Rules of Court (ROC)''', which allows recovery for time expended and reasonable expenses. <ref>https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2023_SGHC_52</ref>
As a litigant in person, Mah’s costs were assessed under '''Order 59 Rule 18A of the Rules of Court (ROC)''', which allows recovery for time expended and reasonable expenses.<ref>https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2023_SGHC_52</ref>


The court noted:<blockquote>"Litigants in person may recover costs to reasonably compensate for time spent, but not at a level that results in profit from the litigation" ([2023] SGHC 14, Costs Decision at [8]).</blockquote>Although Mah suggested he spent 1,000 hours on the case, the court, applying a reasonableness standard, estimated 460 hours, 70% of which related to successful claims (322 hours).  
The court noted:<blockquote>"Litigants in person may recover costs to reasonably compensate for time spent, but not at a level that results in profit from the litigation" ([2023] SGHC 14, Costs Decision at [8]).</blockquote>Although Mah suggested he spent 1,000 hours on the case, the court, applying a reasonableness standard, estimated 460 hours, 70% of which related to successful claims (322 hours).  
Line 146: Line 146:
Adopting an hourly rate of '''S$60'''—derived from the Magistrate’s Court scale, adjusted for the absence of a lawyer's profit margin—the court awarded Mah '''S$19,320'''.
Adopting an hourly rate of '''S$60'''—derived from the Magistrate’s Court scale, adjusted for the absence of a lawyer's profit margin—the court awarded Mah '''S$19,320'''.


===== '''Costs Payable by Mah''' =====
===== Costs Payable by Mah =====
The AG sought '''S$35,000''' for Tan's successful defence and '''S$50,000''' for the SPF’s partial success. Justice Jeyaretnam considered these amounts cumulatively, factoring in the shared representation of the defendants. Noting:<blockquote>“Joint representation requires apportionment of costs to avoid double counting or over-recovery” ([2023] SGHC 14, Costs Decision at [20]).</blockquote>The court applied the '''Torts category''' under the Supreme Court Practice Directions' Costs Guidelines. While the case’s complexity merited an aggregate costs figure of '''S$160,000''', only 30% of this amount related to Tan and the SPF’s successful defences. The final costs awarded were:
The AG sought '''S$35,000''' for Tan's successful defence and '''S$50,000''' for the SPF’s partial success. Justice Jeyaretnam considered these amounts cumulatively, factoring in the shared representation of the defendants. Noting:<blockquote>“Joint representation requires apportionment of costs to avoid double counting or over-recovery” ([2023] SGHC 14, Costs Decision at [20]).</blockquote>The court applied the '''Torts category''' under the Supreme Court Practice Directions' Costs Guidelines. While the case’s complexity merited an aggregate costs figure of '''S$160,000''', only 30% of this amount related to Tan and the SPF’s successful defences. The final costs awarded were:


Line 152: Line 152:
* '''S$26,000''' for the SPF.
* '''S$26,000''' for the SPF.


===== '''Disbursements''' =====
===== Disbursements =====
Disbursements were apportioned, with Mah entitled to recover '''70%''' of his reasonable disbursements, while the AG could claim '''30%'''.
Disbursements were apportioned, with Mah entitled to recover '''70%''' of his reasonable disbursements, while the AG could claim '''30%'''.


Line 179: Line 179:
==== No Appeal Filed ====
==== No Appeal Filed ====
Despite initial consideration, '''no appeal''' was filed by the AGC against the High Court’s decision.
Despite initial consideration, '''no appeal''' was filed by the AGC against the High Court’s decision.
==References==
{{Reflist}}
[[Category:Events]]
GeeBot
Bots, editors
810

edits

Retrieved from "https://politicalsg.com/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/873"