[ad_1]
SINGAPORE: A judge dismissed lawyer Lim Tean’s attempt to prevent police from pursuing two investigations against him, calling the request “completely devoid of any legal merit.”
In the full pleas published on Tuesday (December 8), Judge Ang Cheng Hock also ordered Mr. Lim to pay the Attorney General, the defendant, costs of S $ 7,500.
Lim, 56, had requested a judicial review and a prohibition order to prevent the relevant investigating officers and the Department of Business Affairs (CAD) from investigating him for two criminal cases, as well as an order against CAD and the police. to suspend investigations. .
READ: Lim Tean Arrested for Alleged Criminal Breach of Trust, Under Investigation for Alleged Harassment: Police
He is the subject of two criminal investigations, the first for alleged breach of trust for embezzlement of S $ 30,000 that he received from AXA Insurance on behalf of a former client.
The second is for an accusation of unlawful harassment against a former employee, whom he allegedly invited over for dinner and drinks at his house and persistently addressed her with inappropriate terms such as “honey” and “baby” despite her discomfort.
Judge Ang said that the two investigating officers in each case jointly called Lim on September 23 to inform him that he had to go to the Department of Commercial Affairs office on September 28 to answer questions related to the allegations.
Lim said he would not be able to attend any interviews until after October 9, but the police told him that he must write formally if he wanted to request a rescheduling.
On September 27, the day before Mr. Lim was supposed to go to the police office, his lawyer M Ravi sent an email to investigating officers to tell them that Mr. Lim “had no intention of showing up. to no interviews “because CAD was” investigating trumped up charges “against Mr. Lim that were” politically motivated “.
Mr. Lim did not appear for the interview scheduled for September 28. After assessing the need to arrest Mr. Lim, as his attorney had explicitly stated that he did not intend to appear for any police interviews, CAD agents arrested Mr. Lim in his office on October 2.
Investigating officers attempted to interview Mr. Lim, but he did not answer any of their questions about any of the cases, the judge said.
After Mr. Lim was released on bail, the police received a letter from Mr. Ravi saying that his client, Mr. Lim, was in the process of initiating legal proceedings against the Singapore Police “and the relevant people behind the state machinery in (these) politically motivated investigations. “
Mr. Lim, who is also an opposition politician, subsequently applied to the court for judicial review and prohibition orders.
NO CASE PROVEN
Judge Ang said Wednesday that he found that Lim had failed to show that there was a moot case in favor of granting the remedies he sought.
“Regarding the requested prohibition and mandatory orders, the plaintiff did not cite any authority or legal principle to support his rather remarkable claim that the court could, in appropriate circumstances, issue orders to prevent the CAD and the police continue your investigations into complaints that had been made, “said the judge.
He added that the discretion of the Attorney General to prosecute, even for criminal proceedings carried out by the Attorney General, is subject to judicial review only in two situations: when the fiscal power is abused or exercised in bad faith for other people’s purposes, and when its exercise contravenes constitutionality. protections and rights.
“The plaintiff had not shown me that the police had acted in bad faith or contrary to the constitution in this case,” Judge Ang said.
Responding to Lim’s allegations of collusion by the two investigating officers, the judge said that Lim had provided “nothing more than a simple statement without any details and without any supporting evidence.”
It added that both investigating officers had clearly explained that they were scheduled to interview Mr. Lim on the same date for convenience, to avoid the hassle of going twice on different days for both cases.
“I found this to be perfectly sensible, and indeed inherently logical that the two officers would have done, and I cannot understand the reason for the plaintiff’s complaint,” Judge Ang said.
He added that if Mr. Lim’s case is that the police reports are unfounded, then it would be precisely in his interest to formally deliver his statement to the CAD and the police.
“Police cannot – and indeed should not – simply ignore a police report solely because the person under investigation has made claims through an attorney that the police report is unfounded,” Judge Ang said, adding that the whole purpose of investigations is to determine whether the police report is substantiated or not, and whether crimes have been committed.
“If the declaration of innocence of a person or the accusations of bad faith on the part of the author of the complaint are sufficient to justify that the court order to stop the police investigations, if that were possible, they would flout the powers and procedures established for the criminal investigations in the Code of Criminal Procedure ”, he said.
Lim was arrested a week before representing writer Leong Sze Hian in a defamation lawsuit filed by the prime minister. After his arrest, he went on to question Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in two separate defamation trials: for Mr. Leong and Terry Xu of The Online Citizen.
