Abdul Wahab bin Sulaiman v Commandent, Tanglin Detention Barracks

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 07 January 1985
• Date: 07 January 1985
• Docket Number: Originating Motion No 63 of 1984
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Abdul Wahab bin Sulaiman

Plaintiff

and

Commandant, Tanglin Detention Barracks

Defendant

[1985] SGHC 2

T S Sinnathuray J

Originating Motion No 63 of 1984

High Court

Administrative Law–Military court–Military Court of Appeal–Whether Military Court of Appeal is superior court of record–Whether jurisdiction and exercise of powers to hear and determine appeals from subordinate military courts subject to review by prerogative writs or orders of High Court–Sections 121 (1), 121 (4), 121 (5) and 121 (9) Singapore Armed Forces Act 1972 (Act 7 of 1972)–Military Law–Military Court of Appeal–Jurisdiction and powers–Notice of appeal lodged while national serviceman still serving in army–National serviceman no longer in army when appeal heard–Whether Military Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear appeal–Sections 105 (1) and 123 Singapore Armed Forces Act 1972 (Act 7 of 1972)

On 30 April 1984, the applicant, who was a national serviceman at the time, was convicted by a General Court-Martial on a charge of committing a civil offence contrary to the Singapore Armed Forces Act 1972 (Act 7 of 1972) (“the SAF Act”) for being in unlawful possession of a controlled drug contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 (Act 5 of 1973). He was ordered to undergo six months' detention with effect from 14 March 1984 and was released on 13 July 1984. He completed his national service and was released from the army on 23 July 1984.

On 2 May 1984, the Head of Legal Services of the Singapore Armed Forces lodged a notice of appeal in the Military Court of Appeal against the sentence imposed on the applicant. The appeal was heard by the Military Court of Appeal on 27 July and 31 August 1984. The court ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and enhanced the sentence to 18 months' detention with effect from 14 March 1984. The applicant was detained at Tanglin Detention Barracks, and he sought an order of habeas corpus against the respondent.

Held, dismissing the application:

(1) As the Military Court of Appeal was a superior court of record, its jurisdiction and the exercise of its powers to hear and determine appeals from a subordinate military court were matters that could not be reviewed by any of the prerogative writs or orders of the High Court. It followed that warrants or orders made for enforcing the decisions of the Military Court of Appeal could not be challenged in the High Court, and therefore a writ of habeas corpus could not lie against the respondent for the applicant's detention: at [19].

(2) By s 105 (1) of the SAF Act, the applicant was subject to military law when the appeal came up for hearing: at [22].

(3) The Military Court of Appeal was seized of jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the applicant's sentence when the notice of appeal was lodged on 2 May 1984. On that day, the applicant was a full-time national serviceman subject to military law. The jurisdiction of the Military Court of Appeal was not ousted by reason of the applicant no longer being in the army when the appeal was heard: at [23].

R v Cripps, ex parte Muldoon [1983] 3 All ER 72 (folld)

Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 (Act 5 of 1973) ss 6 (a), 29

Singapore Armed Forces Act 1972 (Act 7 of 1972) ss 105 (1), 121 (1), 121 (4), 121 (5), 121 (9), 123 (consd); ss 108, 154

Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1968 (c 20) (UK) ss 2 (1), 2 (2), 39

J B Jeyaretnam (J B Jeyaretnam) for the applicant

S Tiwari (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the respondent.

T S Sinnathuray J

1 By way of notice of motion, the applicant, Abdul Wahab bin Sulaiman, through his counsel, Mr J B Jeyaretnam, seeks an order for a writ of habeas corpus against the Commandant, Tanglin Detention Barracks.

2 The facts which are not in dispute can be stated shortly.

3 On 23 March 1982 the applicant was enlisted into the army for full-time national service. On 30 April 1984 he was convicted by a General Court-Martial on his plea of guilty to a charge of committing a civil offence contrary to s 108 of the Singapore Armed Forces Act 1972 (“the SAF Act”) for being in unlawful possession of 0.73g of cannabis, a controlled drug, contrary to s 6 (a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973, and punishable under s 29 of the said Act. He was ordered to undergo detention for six months with effect from 14 March 1984. On 2 May 1984, the...