Private prosecution in Singapore: understanding locus standi and measures in place to minimise abuse

Abstract

In Singapore, as is the case with other commonwealth countries, the general rule is that once any offence has been committed, it is for the state to prosecute the alleged offender. This explains why Article 35(8) of the Constitution provides that ‘[t]he Attorney-General shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for any offence’. Article 35(8) is reinforced by section 11 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which provides that ‘[t]he Attorney-General shall be the Public Prosecutor and shall have the control and direction of criminal prosecutions and proceedings under this Code or any other written law’. However, as is the case with other commonwealth countries, the public prosecutor in Singapore does not have an exclusive right to prosecute. In some circumstances other government agencies or private individuals may institute and have instituted prosecutions. The purpose of this article is to discuss the issues of locus standi to institute a private prosecution and the measures in place in Singapore to minimise abusing the right to institute a private prosecution. In discussing these issues, the author, where necessary, compares the Singapore position with that of other commonwealth jurisdictions and makes recommendations on how legislation could be amended in Singapore to address some of the challenges.