SINGAPORE - The High Court has rejected an application by lawyer and Peoples Voice political party leader Lim Tean for the police to drop two investigations against him.

Mr Lim had claimed the investigations were politically motivated and that the police and Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) had colluded against him.

But on Tuesday (Dec 8), Justice Ang Cheng Hock said in a written judgment that he found no evidence to support the claim.

"At the conclusion of the hearing, I dismissed the plaintiff's application because it was without any merit and I provided parties with brief reasons for my decision," he added.

Mr Lim is being investigated by the CAD, the white-collar crime unit of the police force, for suspected criminal breach of trust under the Penal Code.

He is accused of misappropriating S$30,000 he received from an insurance company on behalf of a former client for a motor accident claim.

Mr Lim is also being investigated for an alleged offence of unlawful stalking under the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA). The complainant alleged that he had invited her for dinner and drinks at his home, and persistently addressed her using inappropriate terms such as "darling" and "baby" even after she told him she felt uncomfortable with it.

The Peoples Voice party chief was arrested in his office on Oct 2 after he failed to cooperate with the police investigations.

In his application on Oct 20, he sought to prohibit investigating officer Hannah Cheong of the police's Central Division from continuing the POHA investigations, as he claimed she was in "collusion" with CAD investigating officer Desmond Toh.

The two officers had made a phone call to him together on Sept 23, asking that he go to the CAD's office for an interview on the two suspected offences.

Mr Lim also sought a mandatory order against the two agencies to stop both investigations as "the entire process" is "irreversibly tainted with biasness by reason of collusion and the prejudicial manner" in which they have been dealt with, according to the written judgment.

In his judgment, Justice Ang said the police have a duty under the Criminal Procedure Code to investigate offences, and Mr Lim had failed to show that the police had acted in bad faith or contrary to the Constitution.

He also noted that Mr Lim's claims of collusion between the two investigators were unsupported, calling his claims "skimpy or vague".

"It was entirely unclear to me what this alleged collusion entailed, apart from the contention that the collusion was said to be proven by the mere fact that the two officers made a phone call together to the plaintiff on Sept 23, 2020," said Justice Ang.

He said that Mr Lim had provided nothing more than a bare assertion without any details and supporting evidence, nor could his lawyer explain what legal effect the alleged collusion had on the investigations.

On the other hand, the two officers explained that they planned to interview Mr Lim on the same date for convenience, since the CAD and Central Division are both located in the Police Cantonment Complex in New Bridge Road.

While Mr Lim claimed that investigations were "politically motivated", he gave no evidence of that, noted Justice Ang.

The High Court judge also addressed his complaints that the police reports are either untrue or unfounded, or that there is doubt over the credibility of the complainant, saying it would precisely be in his interest to formally provide his statement to the two agencies to explain his version of events.

"The police cannot - and, indeed, should not - simply ignore a police report solely because the person under investigation has raised claims through counsel that the police report is baseless," said the judge, adding that the purpose of investigations is to establish whether a police report has grounds or not, and whether offences have been committed.

"If a person's statement of innocence or allegations of bad faith on the complainant's part is enough to justify the Court ordering a stop to police investigations, it would make a mockery of the powers and procedures for criminal investigations set out in the CPC (Criminal Procedure Code)."