Abex Centre Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 28 March 2000
• Date: 28 March 2000
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 246 of 1999
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Abex Centre Pte Ltd

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[2000] SGHC 48

Yong Pung How CJ

Magistrate's Appeal No 246 of 1999

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Compensation and costs–Costs of prosecution and appeal–Whether appellant should pay costs–Principles applicable in court's exercise of discretion–Whether appellant's defence or appeal conducted “extravagantly and unnecessarily”–Sections 262 (1) and 401 (1) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)

The Collector of Land Revenue obtained a warrant for dispossession against the appellant for unlawful occupation of State lands. The appellant appealed against the issue of the warrant, but withdrew the appeal on the day of the hearing. The Prosecution sought costs under ss 262 (1) and 401 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the CPC”).

Held, awarding costs to the Prosecution:

(1) In exercising its discretion under s 401 (1) of the CPC, the court was entitled to take all the circumstances into account, including the strength of the Prosecution's case, the accused's knowledge of this, and his conduct of the defence. In particular, where the accused lost his case and the court was of the view that his defence had been conducted “extravagantly and unnecessarily”, he might be ordered to pay some of the Prosecution's costs: at [13].

(2) Section 262 (1) of the CPC was framed in very wide terms and left entirely to the High Court the question of costs of a criminal appeal under the CPC, and the manner in which such costs should be assessed. The principles governing the court's exercise of its discretion under s 401 (1) of the CPC were equally applicable: at [14].

(3) Although the strength of the defence, whether at trial or on appeal, was a relevant factor to be considered by the court in awarding costs, it was by no means conclusive. The important test was whether the accused had conducted his defence or appeal “extravagantly and unnecessarily”. In applying this test, the facts of the case, the strength of the defence and the course of conduct of the defence had to be closely scrutinised: at [15].

(4) The appellants had no defence and their case at trial and on appeal was without merit. The tenancy agreement was expressly stated to be subject to the State Lands Rules and the termination was lawful. They had no legal basis to justify their continued occupation of the premises, and their conduct of the defence and the appeal was “extravagant and unnecessary”: at [17] and [18].

Arts Niche Cyber Distribution Pte Ltd v PP [1999] 2 SLR (R) 936; [1999] 4 SLR 111 (folld)

Oh Cheng Hai v Ong Yong Yew [1993] 3 SLR (R) 257; [1993] 3 SLR 930 (folld)

Wee Soon Kim Anthony v PP [1992] 3 SLR (R) 9; [1993] 1 SLR 372 (folld)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68,1985 Rev Ed)ss 262 (1), 401 (1) (consd)

State Lands Encroachments Act (Cap 315, 1985 Rev Ed)ss 2, 4 (1)

State Lands Rules 1993 (S 290/1993)r 29 (1)

Mahendra S Segeram (Segeram & Co) for the appellant

Norul Huda Rashid (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the respondent.

Yong Pung How CJ

1 This appeal arose in relation to a warrant for dispossession obtained by the Collector of Land Revenue against the appellants, Abex Centre Pte Ltd, pursuant to ss 2 and 4 (1) of the State Lands Encroachments Act (Cap 315, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the Act”). The warrant for dispossession was obtained as the appellants were found to be in unlawful occupation of certain State lands, to wit, Lot 65 TS 19, on which stands a three-storey building known as 2 Adis Road, Singapore 229974 (“the State land”).

2 The appellants filed a notice of appeal and petition of appeal against the issue of the...