Sundram Jaykumal v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: Privy Council
• Judge: Lord Bridge of Harwich
• Judgment Date: 14 July 1981
• Neutral Citation: [1981] SGPC 2
• Citation: [1981] SGPC 2
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1981
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 11 of 1978
• Date: 14 July 1981
• Subject Matter: Art 5 Constitution of the Republic of Singapore,Constitution,Notice to accused to mention facts relied on in defence,Statements,Inferences which may be drawn from failure to mention facts,Right to remain silent,Right to silence,Constitutional Law,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Interpretation,ss 121(6) & 122(1) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 113),Whether ss 121(6), (7) and 122(1) of Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 113) contrary to Constitution of the Republic of Singapore
• Plaintiff Counsel: George Newman QC and Mark Strachan (Coward Chance)
• Defendant Counsel: Jonathan Harvie (Jaques & Co)

The only ground upon which leave to appeal is sought in the present case is in order to challenge the constitutionality of ss 121(6) and (7) and s 122(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Singapore.

Section 121(6) requires a person charged with an offence, or officially informed that he may be prosecuted for it, to be given a notice in writing advising him that if there is any fact which he intends to rely upon in his defence in court he should mention it then and warning him that, if he holds it back until he goes to court, his evidence may be less likely to be believed. Section 122(1) provides that at his trial the court may draw such inferences as appear proper...