CNA reported Tuesday that Singapore’s Court of Appeal dismissed Ong Cheng Cheng’s appeal from a High Court ruling that refused more time for her challenge to prosecutors’ decision to end her case against her brother.
In the High Court, Ong sought orders setting aside the Attorney-General’s Chambers’ (AGC) intervention and requiring the Attorney-General to reconsider the prosecution. She filed her application on Mar. 4, 2026. The court said a person seeking permission to have such a decision quashed or made subject to a mandatory order must apply within three months. It declined to extend that period, citing an unexplained delay of about nine months after June 5, 2025.
The case began with Ong’s allegation that her brother, Ong Cheng Poh, assaulted her on Jan. 21, 2023. She filed a police report on Jan. 30, 2023, and a Magistrate’s Complaint on July 5, 2023. On Apr. 12, 2024, she began a private prosecution against him on one charge of voluntarily causing hurt.
AGC told the court on July 23, 2024, that it would take over the prosecution under Singapore’s Criminal Procedure Code. Section 13 allows the Public Prosecutor to enter a private prosecution at any stage and choose whether it continues. AGC discontinued the case on July 29, 2024, after which the court granted Ong Cheng Poh a discharge amounting to acquittal.
In an Aug. 12, 2024, letter, AGC said it had considered the relevant facts and circumstances and that police would give Ong Cheng Poh a stern warning instead of prosecuting him. The High Court judgment records that explanation but does not set out a specific reason for the intervention.
The High Court also considered the merits of Ong’s application. It said CCTV footage and her brother’s reported willingness to plead guilty were insufficient by themselves to support an initial suspicion that prosecutors had acted arbitrarily. The judgment says prosecutorial decisions may be reviewed if made in bad faith, for an extraneous purpose or in breach of constitutional protections.
At the appeal hearing, Ong’s lawyer argued that AGC had not provided a specific reason for intervening, CNA reported. State Counsel Kenneth Chua argued that prosecutors had no duty to explain the decision, the outlet reported. The High Court judgment says the Public Prosecutor generally need not explain the basis for a particular decision.
