Chen Hock Heng Textile Printing Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 11 March 1996
• Neutral Citation: [1996] SGHC 39
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 349/95/01
• Date: 11 March 1996
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1996
• Plaintiff Counsel: Spencer Gwee (Spencer Gwee & Co)
• Citation: [1996] SGHC 39
• Defendant Counsel: Lim Yew Jin (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether appeal proper,Whether High Court ought to exercise power of revision,Offence as charged not disclosed in statement of facts,Plea of guilty,Statement of facts disclosed no offence,Revision of proceedings,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Appeal against conviction from subordinate court,Appeal,ss 244, 266 & 268 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Whether court had power to acquit accused on its own motion,Notice of appeal against sentence only

This was an appeal from a departmental prosecution. The appellant company pleaded guilty in the district court to an amended charge as follows:

You, Chen Hock Heng Textile Printing Pte Ltd 47 Sungei Kadut Street (Singapore 2572) are charged that you, after having been convicted on the 26 November 1993 in Subordinate Court No 13N of an offence under s 5(1) of the Building Control Act (Cap 29), for carrying out building works, to wit, erected sheds at front measuring approximately 16m x 9m and at side measuring approximately 10.6m x 5.5m at 47 Sungei Kadut St 6, Singapore 2572 without the approval from the Building Authority in contravention of s 5(1) of the Building Control Act (Cap 29), did continue such offence from the said date of conviction until 23 June 1995. The period of default being from 19 October 1994 to 23 June 1995, to wit, 247 days and you have thereby committed an [sic] continuing offence punishable under s 5(3) of the said Act.

The statement of facts, apart from the appellant`s antecedents, merely said that the facts were as stated in the charge.

The complainant`s statement of facts revealed that:

The defendant is Chen Hock Heng Printing Pte Ltd, a company incorporated in Singapore with is registered address at No 47 Sungei Kadut St 6, Singapore 2572.

On 26 November 1993 the said defendant was convicted and fined $6,500 for an offence under s 5(3) of the Building Control Act (Cap 29) in respect of the unauthorized sheds erected at the factory premises at No 47 Sungei Kadut St 6, Singapore.

On 23 June 1995 I revisited the premises at No 47 Sungei Kadut St 6 and found that two sheds measuring approximately 26m x 9m and 10.6m x 5.5m still continued to remain erected at the front and the side of the factory premises, respectively in contravention of s 5(1) of the Building Control Act.

The defendant has thereby committed a continuing offence from the said date of conviction until 23 June 1995. The period of continuous default being from 19 October 1994 to 23 June 1995, to wit, 247 days, an offence punishable under s 5(3) of Building Control Act (Cap 29).

It was apparent that the learned district judge took this into account because at p 3 of his grounds, he stated:

I considered the mitigation plea advanced by counsel for the defendant company. It would not be a difficult task to dismantle the sheds as they were not permanent or solid structures. They had no walls. The sheds were not demolished apparently because the company still wanted to use them to shelter its bales of textiles. The illness of its managing director was also cited as a reason why the company was still infringing the law. Although defence counsel submitted that the infringement was not blatant, I could not accept this in view of the previous occasions the company had been convicted for continuing the offence. I took into account, however, that about three quarters of the structures had been demolished.

The appellant was convicted upon its guilty charge and was fined $800 a day, amounting to a total of $197,600. On 4 November 1995, the appellants` then solicitors filed a notice of appeal against sentence only. On 24 November 1995, the appellant`s present solicitors filed the petition of appeal. In it, the appellant appealed against both conviction and sentence.

It was apparent that the gravamen of the charge was that the sheds, constructed by the appellant without prior approval, and for which the appellant had been fined $6,500, still remained on the premises and were being used by the appellant. In fact, these were the only facts before the court.

Before me, counsel for the appellant contended, and the learned DPP conceded, that the facts as stated did not constitute any offence under s 5 of the Building Control Act (Cap 29) (the Act). In my view, the concession by the learned DPP was rightly made. Section 5 of the Act, so far as relevant, provides:

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person shall commence or carry out, or permit or authorise the commencement or carrying out of, any building works unless

...