The High Court has dismissed an application by 22 death row inmates to obtain documents and answers to questions in relation to a potential civil suit against the Attorney-General (A-G).

The inmates' application was made under procedures for potential litigants to seek disclosure of information before deciding whether or not to launch legal action.

The inmates, who are represented by lawyer M. Ravi, are contemplating a lawsuit because letters between them and their lawyers, as well as them and their families, had been forwarded by the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) to the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC).

In a judgment yesterday, Justice See Kee Oon said the inmates are precluded from applying for pre-action disclosures against the A-G.

The complete scope of disclosures against the Government is limited by what is provided for in the Government Proceedings Act.

Justice See added that pre-action disclosures are excluded from this scope as they are not expressly provided for, and do not fall within the definition of civil proceedings under the Act.

The judge said the A-G has already disclosed all the inmates' correspondence received by the AGC and affirmed that the letters were not used to gain any legal advantage.

Also, no correspondence from nine of the inmates had been forwarded to the AGC.

"In my view, the voluntary disclosures made by the A-G already provide the plaintiffs with sufficient documents and information to mount their contemplated claims as they may deem fit," he said.

The judge ordered $10 in nominal costs against the inmates.

The application arose out of previous proceedings involving two of the 22 inmates, Gobi Avedian and Datchinamurthy Kataiah. In those proceedings, the Court of Appeal observed that the SPS had copied and forwarded to the AGC certain correspondence between the duo and their lawyers and families.

The apex court ruled last year that prison regulations did not permit the SPS to forward inmates' correspondence to the AGC. However, the court accepted that this was due to oversight and not an attempt to seek any legal advantage.

Later that year, 11 inmates filed the application for pre-action disclosure. They contended that they cannot start legal proceedings as they are unable to identify the individuals involved and to ascertain the extent of the harm caused to them as they lack the relevant documents.

Another 11 inmates were later added as plaintiffs.