|
''Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs'' is a seminal case in administrative law decided by the Court of Appeal of Singapore in 1988. The Court decided the appeal in the appellants' favour on a technical ground, but considered ''obiter dicta'' the reviewability of government power in preventive detention cases under the Internal Security Act ("ISA"). The case approved the application by the court of an objective test in the review of government discretion under the ISA, stating that all power has legal limits and the rule of law demands that the courts should be able to examine the exercise of discretionary power. This was a landmark shift from the position in the 1971 High Court decision ''Lee Mau Seng v. Minister of Home Affairs'', which had been an authority for the application of a subjective test until it was overruled by ''Chng Suan Tze''. ''Chng Suan Tze'' was followed by amendments by Parliament to the Constitution and the ISA in 1989 which purported to return the applicable law regarding judicial review of government discretion under the ISA to that in ''Lee Mau Seng''. The legality of these changes was challenged in ''Teo Soh Lung v. Minister for Home Affairs'' (1990). In that decision, the Court of Appeal affirmed that the legislative amendments to the Act were plain and unambiguous, and thus validly established that the subjective test of judicial review now applied to internal security matters. ==Facts and legal issues== Between May and June 1987, the appellants Chng Suan Tze, Kevin Desmond de Souza, Teo Soh Lung and Wong Souk Yee were arrested by the Internal Security Department (ISD) during Operation Spectrum for alleged involvement in a Marxist conspiracy to subvert and destabilize the country. Detention orders were made against the appellants under section 8(1)(a) of the Internal Security Act〔 ("ISA").〕 by the Minister for Home Affairs and Law, S. Jayakumar, directing that they be detained for one year. The provision empowers the Minister to make an order directing that a person be detained if the President is satisfied that detention is necessary to prevent the person from endangering, among other things, the security or public order of Singapore. Subsequently, the detention orders were suspended under section 10 of the ISA.〔ISA, s. 10, allows the Minister to suspend detention orders made under s. 8(1)(a) and to revoke any suspension direction if satisfied that the person failed to comply with any conditions imposed, or if it is necessary in the public interest.〕 However, following the release of a press statement by the appellants in which they denied the Government's accusation that they were Marxist conspirators, the suspension directions were revoked and they were re-arrested. The revocation order stated that "in view of the statement, it is necessary in the public interest that the direction ... be revoked."〔''Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs'' ([1988] SGCA 16 ), () 2 S.L.R.(R.) (Law Reports (Reissue)'' ) 525 at 535, para. 15, C.A. (Singapore), archived from (the original ) on 24 December 2011.〕 The Ministry of Home Affairs later stated that investigations had established that the press statement was a political ploy to discredit the Government and that the appellants had sworn statutory declarations reaffirming the truth of their original statements to the ISD.〔''Chng Suan Tze'', p. 536, para. 21.〕 The appellants' one-year detentions were subsequently extended under section 8(2) of the ISA.〔''Chng Suan Tze'', p. 536, para. 23. The ISA, s. 8(2), provides that the President may direct that the period of any order made under s. 8(1) may be extended for a further period or periods not exceeding two years at a time.〕 In May and June 1988, the appellants unsuccessfully applied to the High Court for leave to apply for writs of ''habeas corpus''.〔See ''De Souza Kevin Desmond v. Minister for Home Affairs'' () 1 S.L.R.(R.) 464, H.C.; and ''Teo Soh Lung v. Minister for Home Affairs'' () 2 S.L.R.(R.) 30, H.C.〕 The appellants then appealed to the Court of Appeal. The lead counsels were Geoffrey Robertson Q.C. for Chng, de Souza and Wong; Anthony Lester Q.C. for Teo; and Sivakant Tiwari for the respondents. The following issues were raised in the appeals:〔''Chng Suan Tze'', pp. 536–537, paras. 25–28.〕 *Whether the Minister for Home Affairs' discretionary power under sections 8 and 10 of the ISA to issue a detention order, suspend the order and revoke the suspension is reviewable by a court of law. *Whether the re-detention of the appellants was lawful under section 10 of the ISA. *Whether Teo's detention, even if originally lawful, had been rendered unlawful by the conditions of her detention. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|