Haw Tua Tau v Public Prosecutor; Tan Ah Tee (alias Tan Kok Ser) v Public Prosecutor; Low Hong Eng v Public Prosecutor

Judgment Date07 September 1979
Date07 September 1979
Docket NumberCriminal Appeal No 1 of 1978
CourtCourt of Appeal (Singapore)
Haw Tua Tau
Plaintiff
and
Public Prosecutor
Defendant

[1979] SGCA 17

Wee Chong Jin CJ

,

T Kulasekaram J

and

D C D'Cotta J

Criminal Appeal No 1 of 1978

Court of Criminal Appeal

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Statements–Unsworn statement–Right of accused to make an unsworn statement from the dock–Criminal procedure amendments–Sections 181, 182 and 186A Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 113, 1970 Rev Ed)–Constitutional Law–Fundamental liberties–Protection against retrospective criminal laws–Whether amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code operated retrospectively–Republic of Singapore Independence Act 1965 (Act 9 of 1965)–Article 7 Federal Constitution (M'sia)

The appellant appealed against his conviction for murder, arguing that there had been a miscarriage of justice at trial. Firstly, it was contended that the High Court should not have applied amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 113, 1970 Rev Ed) which were not in force when he was first charged. These amendments introduced, amongst other things, the requirement that the accused could only make a statement after being sworn or affirmed. Secondly, if these amendments operated retrospectively, they were void as contrary to Art 7 of the Federal Constitution (M'sia), which was law in Singapore under the Republic of Singapore Independence Act 1965 (Act 9 of 1965).

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The right to make an unsworn statement from the dock was a right which vested in an accused at trial. As the amendments were in force before the appellant was tried, the amendments governed the trial: at [10].

(2) The amendments did not contravene Art 7 of the Federal Constitution (M'sia): at [13].

Mohamed Salleh v PP [1968-1970] SLR (R) 330; [1965-1968] SLR 332 (refd)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 113,1970 Rev Ed)ss 181, 182,186A (consd);s 181 (2)

Penal Code (Cap 103,1970 Rev Ed)s 302

Republic of Singapore Independence Act1965 (Act 9 of 1965)

Federal Constitution (M'sia) Art 7 (consd)

Mohideen M P Haja Rubin (Amarjit, Rubin & Partners) for the appellant

E C Foenander (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the respondent.

Wee Chong Jin CJ

(delivering the judgment of the Court):

1 On 12 December 1976 the appellant, Haw Tua Tau, caused the death of two persons, Phoon Ah Leong and Hu Yuen Kheng. He was arrested on the same day and on 13 December 1976 he was produced before a magistrate and charged on two separate charges with having caused the death of these two persons in circumstances amounting to murder. Eventually, on 6 March 1978 the appellant was brought before the High Court for trial on these two charges which read as follows:

First Charge:

Haw Tua Tau, you are charged that you on or about 12 December 1976, at about 6.00pm at Block 40-A, Margaret Drive Hawkers' Centre, Singapore, did commit murder by causing the death of one Phoon Ah Leong, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 302 of the Penal Code (Cap 103).

Second Charge:

Haw Tua Tau, you are charged that you on or about 12 December 1976, at about 6.00pm at Block 40-A, Margaret Drive Hawkers' Centre, Singapore, did commit murder by causing the death of one Hu Yuen Kheng, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 302 of the Penal Code (Cap 103).

2 The High Court convicted the appellant on both charges and sentenced him to suffer punishment by death. He now appeals against his conviction and sentence.

3 At the close of the Prosecution's case the court called upon the appellant to enter upon his defence on both...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Haw Tua Tau and Another v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • Privy Council
    • 22 Junio 1981
    ......Low Hong Eng and Tan Ah Tee were charged jointly with trafficking in 459.3g of diamorphine - a quantity that ......
  • Antoun v R
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 8 Febrero 2006
    ...There is no advantage to be gained by blurring these differences. Keeping them in mind helps to avoid confusion. 17 In Haw Tua Tau v Public Prosecutor11, an appeal to the Privy Council from Singapore, Lord Diplock gave the reasons of the Judicial Committee. Trial by jury had been abolished ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT