Abdullah bin A Rahman v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 30 July 1994
• Date: 30 July 1994
• Docket Number: Criminal Motion No 13 of 1994
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Abdullah bin A Rahman

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[1994] SGCA 91

Yong Pung How CJ

,

M Karthigesu JA

and

L P Thean JA

Criminal Motion No 13 of 1994

Court of Appeal

Courts and Jurisdiction–Court of Appeal–Criminal jurisdiction–Whether Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to reopen case and admit new evidence after appeal had been heard and dismissed–Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1985 Rev Ed)–Courts and Jurisdiction–Court judgments–Whether court had to serve notice to affected parties of intention to review existing case law–Section 30 Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1990 Rev Ed)–Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Appeal–Adducing fresh evidence–Leave to adduce fresh evidence after appeal disposed of by Court of Appeal–Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1985 Rev Ed)

The applicant was charged with abetting one Rashid in the trafficking of 76.3g of diamorphine. The applicant and Rashid were jointly tried and sentenced to death. Their appeals to the Court of Appeal were dismissed and their subsequent pleas of clemency to the President were also denied. Three days before their death penalties were scheduled to be carried out, Rashid told the applicant that the long statement he had given to the investigating officer and his testimony in court were a total fabrication. The applicant conveyed this information to his counsel who made the present application to adduce Rashid's retraction as fresh evidence. Counsel relied on ss 29A (4) and 55 (1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the SCJA”) to assert that the Court of Appeal had discretion to admit additional evidence to determine “any question” before the court or in “any” appeal if the justice of the case required such course of action. Counsel also argued that he did not have notice that the court intended to depart from its earlier interpretation of s 30 of the Evidence Act, otherwise he would have made submissions on this point.

Held, dismissing the motion:

(1) The Court of Appeal was a creature of legislation and its criminal jurisdiction was defined and limited by ss 29A (2), 44, 59 and 60 of the SCJA: at [7] and [11].

(2) The Court of Appeal could not exercise its powers in matters over which it had no jurisdiction: at [11].

(3) The SCJA provisions above that conferred criminal jurisdiction on the Court of Appeal did not extend to a situation where the court had heard and disposed of an appeal. In such situations, the court had no jurisdiction to reopen the case and hear fresh evidence. Parliament had not legislated continuous supervision by the Court of Appeal over convicted persons or to act whenever there was a change of circumstance: at [10] and [13].

(4) Section 55 (1) of the SCJA empowered the Court of Appeal to admit additional evidence in cases which the court already had jurisdiction. The provision did not mean the court could receive fresh evidence at any time; if this were so, there would be no finality to any appeal: at [12].

(5) The Court of Appeal's decision in Chin Seow Noi v PP [1993] 3 SLR (R) 566 to adopt a different interpretation of s 30 of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1990 Rev Ed) from the earlier case of Ramachandran a/l Suppiah v PP [1993] 2 SLR (R) 392 did not create any procedural rights for the applicant. There was no requirement imposed on the court to give notice to the affected parties with pending appeals whenever it intended to review the law in a particular area: at [16].

Abdul Rashid bin Mohamed v PP [1993] 3 SLR (R) 656; [1994] 1 SLR 119 (refd)

Chin Seow Noi v PP [1993] 3 SLR (R) 566; [1994] 1 SLR 135 (refd)

Kuruma, Son of Kaniu v R [1955] AC 197 (refd)

Mohamad Kunjo s/o Ramalan v PP [1979] AC 135 (refd)

Ong Ah Chuan v PP [1979-1980] SLR (R) 53; [1980-1981] SLR 48 (refd)

PP v Abdul Rashid [1993] 2 SLR (R) 848; [1993] 3 SLR 794 (refd)

R v Pinfold [1988] QB 462 (refd)

Ramachandran a/l Suppiah v PP [1993] 2 SLR (R) 392; [1993] 2 SLR 671 (refd)

Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1990 Rev Ed) s 30 (consd)

Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 29A (2), 29A (4), 44, 54, 55, 59, 60

Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c 19) (UK) s 17

P Suppiah (P Suppiah & Co) for the applicant

Bala Reddy and Chng Lye Beng (Deputy Public Prosecutors) for the respondent.

Yong Pung How CJ

(delivering the grounds of judgment of the court):

1 In this criminal motion the...