Wong Hong Toy and Another v Public Prosecutor

• Judge: L P Thean J
• Judgment Date: 22 August 1985
• Neutral Citation: [1985] SGHC 23
• Citation: [1985] SGHC 23
• Defendant Counsel: Tan Teow Yeow (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: JB Jeyaretnam (JB Jeyaretnam & Co)
• Date: 22 August 1985
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 577 of 1982,Criminal Motion No 26 of 1985,Magistrate's Appeals Nos 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of 1984
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Transfer of cases,Trials,s 184 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 113),Application to transfer trials to High Court,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing

This is an application for an order that the two cases, DAC 4151 and 4152 of 1983, presently pending in the subordinate court be transferred to the High Court pursuant to s 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the two cases the applicants are respectively charged for having committed an offence under s 199 read with s 193 of the Penal Code (Cap 103). In each case the charge is as follows:

You, ... are charged that you on or about 3 August 1982 at Singapore made a false statement in a declaration which was by law receivable as evidence before Daljit Singh a Commissioner for Oaths when they stated that

(a) Receipts and Payment Account for the period 1 January 1982 to 16 June 1982,

(b) Income and Expenditure Account for the period 1 January 1982 to 16 June 1982,

(c) Balance Sheet as at 16 June 1982

drawn up by A Balakrishnan, the Treasurer of the Workers` Party and affirmed by him in an affidavit dated 6 July 1982, exhibited a true and fair view of the transactions and results for the period specified therein and of the state of affairs of the Workers` Party as at the date specified;

which, you did not believe to be true touching a point material to the object for which the declaration was made namely the verification of the Accounts of the Workers` Party and had thereby committed an offence punishable under s 199 read with s 193 of the Penal Code (Ch 103). (Particulars.)

The applicants were first tried on the said charges before the learned senior district judge and at the conclusion of the prosecution`s case were acquitted and discharged. The learned district judge ruled that the declaration jointly made by them on 3 August 1982 was not a declaration which a court of justice was bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence of any fact because it did not contain the following statutory wording: `and I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835`, which is found in the Schedule to the Statutory Declarations Act (Cap 13). Against that decision the Public Prosecutor appealed, and the appeal was heard before the learned Chief Justice. He held that the declaration was not made in the form prescribed in the Schedule to the Statutory Declarations Act and therefore was not a statutory declaration under the Statutory Declarations Act 1835 of United Kingdom (which is deemed by s 2 of the Singapore Statutory...