Attorney General v Koh Cho Puan and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 11 July 1966
• Date: 11 July 1966
• Docket Number: Criminal Motion No 10 of 1966
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Attorney-General

Plaintiff

and

Koh Cho Puan and others

Defendant

[1966] SGHC 18

A V Winslow J

Criminal Motion No 10 of 1966

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Trials–Transfer of cases–Application by Attorney-General to transfer to the High Court–Whether transfer necessary as law was complex, documents voluminous and trial would be lengthy–Sections 176 and 177 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 132, 1955 Rev Ed)

The Attorney-General applied for the case to be transferred from the District Courts to the High Court on the basis that the law was complex, the trial likely to be lengthy and the documentary exhibits voluminous. Counsel for all the accused objected on the basis that it would be against the financial interests of the accused persons to have it so transferred and that the law was not complicated and within the competence of the District Courts.

Held, dismissing the motion:

(1) The length of the trial alone is not necessarily a decisive factor for a transfer to the High Court. Neither does the mere fact that the case involves some knowledge of shipping and banking practice render it beyond the competence of the District Courts. As such, the application was dismissed: at [3].

(2) Section 176 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires an application to be supported by an affidavit except where the applicant is the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General in person: at [6].

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 132, 1955 Rev Ed) ss 176, 177 (consd)

A V Winslow J

1 The Attorney-General applies for the transfer for trial to this court of this case in which it is claimed the law is complex, the trial likely to be lengthy, and the documentary exhibits voluminous.

2 The application is strongly opposed by counsel representing all the four accused persons concerned who claim that the case is within the competence of the District Courts and that it would be against the financial interests of the accused persons to have it so transferred. It is also stressed that all the charges involve the same transaction and that the law is not complicated.

3 Iam inclined to agree that, on the facts before me, this is the kind of case where the supreme needs of justice do not require that the ordinary course of justice should be altered. Its length alone is not necessarily a decisive factor for a transfer to this court and the mere fact that the case involves some knowledge of shipping and banking practice does not in my opinion render it beyond...