Anuar bin Othman v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chan Sek Keong J
• Judgment Date: 03 December 1990
• Neutral Citation: [1990] SGHC 101
• Docket Number: Criminal Motion No 1 of 1990
• Date: 03 December 1990
• Year: 1990
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mangalam Amaladass (M Dass & Co)
• Citation: [1990] SGHC 101
• Defendant Counsel: Lau Wing Yum (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Particulars of charge,Prevention of Corruption Act,Statutory offences,Criminal Law,Appeal,Whether accused received reward for doing act in relation to principal's affairs,Merits of the case,Effect of acquittal of the co-accused,Out of time,Test to be applied,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Extension of time for filing notice of appeal

Cur Adv Vult

This is a motion by the applicant for extension of time to file the petition of appeal in DAC 10514/87. The applicant was charged and tried together with one Ranjeet Singh, the first accused, in a joint trial for two offences under s 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1985 Ed) read with s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Ed). The first charge was:

That you, Ranjeet Singh and Anuar bin Othman are charged that you, on 22 July 1987, at Spring Season Pte Ltd, 301 Upper Thomson Road, #02-98/12, Singapore, being agents to wit, higher hawkers liaison officer and hawkers liaison officer respe ctively attached to the Hawkers Section, Ang Mo Kio Area Office, Housing and Development Board, Singapo re, in furtherance of the common intention of both of you, did corruptly obtain from one Tan Siang Kim, a hawker assistant, a gratification in the form of a lunch treat valued at forty six dollars and ninety cents ($46.90), as a reward for showing favour to the said Tan Siang Kim in relation to your principal` s affairs by assisting him in getting approval for his application to be employed as hawker assistant of stall #01-47 Block 453A, Ang Mo Kio Avenue 10, Singapore, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241) read with s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

The second charge was:

That you, Ranjeet Singh and Anuar bin Othman are charged that you, on 22 July 1987, at Spring Season Pte Ltd, 301 Upper Thomson Road, #02-98/12, Singapore, being agents, to wit, higher hawkers liaison officer and hawkers liaison officer respectively attached to the Hawkers Section, Ang Mo Kio Area Office Housing and Development Board, Singapore, in furtherance of the common intention of both of you, did corruptly obtain from one Tan Siang Kim, a hawker assistant, a gratification in the form of money as a reward for showing favour to the said Tan Siang Kim in relation to your principal ` s affairs by assisting him in getting approval for his application to be employed as hawker assistant of stall #01-47, Block 453A, Ang Mo Kio Avenue 10, Singapore, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241) read with s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

Both the applicant and Ranjeet Singh were on 30 June 1988 acquitted of the second charge after they had entered their defences, but were convicted on the first charge and were each fined $800, in default two months` imprisonment. Both accused were also ordered to pay a penalty in the sum of $15.63, in default three days` imprisonment.

Both the applicant and Ranjeet Singh filed notices of appeal against their conviction. The applicant filed his notice personally. In his affidavit, he has stated that he was unable to engage a solicitor as he had exhausted all his funds, including his children` s savings, to pay solicitor`s fees in connection with the trial on the two charges.

On 23 August 1988, the applicant was served with the grounds of decision and notes of evidence, but he did not know how to prepare the petition of appeal and also did not realize that it had to be filed within ten days from the receipt of the grounds of decision. He did nothing further as he claimed he was ignorant of the procedures and had insufficient funds to engage a solicitor.

Some time in 1989, the applicant read in the newspapers that Ranjeet Singh`s appeal against conviction had been allowed by the High Court. The applicant has now raised sufficient funds to pursue his appeal on the ground that he had been wrongly convicted. The DPP has objected to this application on the ground that it is only in exceptional cases that an extension of time should be given: see R v [1936] MLJ 29 at p 31. The DPP also referred me to the decision of the Court of Appeal of Brunei in [1985] 1 MLJ 461 where the court said at p 462:

There are two factors to be considered upon an application for an extension of time, (1) the length of the delay and whether it can be satisfactorily explained, and (2) whether the out of time application is likely to succeed.

The DPP has submitted that the delay of more than 18 months is inordinate, that the applicant must show that he has an arguable case and that the fact that Ranjeet Singh, his co-accused, has succeeded in his appeal does not necessarily mean that the applicant would also be successful.

I accept the grounds given by the applicant for the delay in making this application as excusable. He was only employed as a hawker liaison officer.

With regard to the second objection that the applicant must show that he has an arguable case, I am not ready to agree with the general proposition that the fact of the setting aside of the conviction of the co-accused does not in itself show merit. In my view, it depends on the facts of each case. In R v Rigby (1923) 17 Cr App R 111, where the appellant was convicted together with a co-accused of stealing and receiving a motor car, Hewart LCJ said at p 113:

In this case it is clear that the appellant never thought that he had any ground for appealing until he heard that Spinney` s conviction had been quashed. In itself the mere fact that a fellow prisoner` s conviction has been quashed is no ground for extending the time for appealing of another prisoner.

It is, however, to be noted that in the present case the applicant did file a notice of appeal in time and so it could not be said against him that he had never thought that he had no ground of appeal even before Ranjeet Singh`s conviction was quashed.

In order to determine whether the applicant has an arguable case, I decided to look into the merits of this case...