Jeyaretnam JB v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chan Sek Keong J
• Judgment Date: 08 June 1990
• Neutral Citation: [1990] SGHC 41
• Date: 08 June 1990
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Court of appeal,Reasons to be given by licensing officer for refusal,Public Entertainments Act,Questions of law of public interest,Courts and Jurisdiction,s 2 & 18(1)(a) Public Entertainments Act (Cap 257),Whether address was public entertainment,Licence refused,Providing public entertainment without a licence,s 60 Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322),Statutory offences,Freedom of speech,Fundamental rights,Whether speech made to gathering at a public place was an address,Applicant failed to request for reasons to be given
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeals Nos 205 and 215 of 1988,Criminal Motion No 62 of 1989
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Sowaran Singh (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Applicant (JB Jeyaretnam & Co) in person

This is an application by the appellant in MA No 205 of 1988 pursuant to s 60 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) (the SCJA) for certain questions of law to be referred for decision by the Court of Criminal Appeal on the ground that they were of public interest. At the conclusion of the hearing of this application, I dismissed the application and said I would give my reasons later.

The appellant was convicted and fined $3,500 by the district court on the charge of having on 10 January 1987 provided public entertainment without a licence, an offence under s 18(1)(a) of the Public Entertainments Act (Cap 257) (the Act). The nature of the entertainment was in the form of a speech which he made at a public gathering at the five-foot way at No 80 Boat Quay which was a public place. He appealed against the conviction and sentence. On 10 October 1989, I dismissed the appeal against conviction and reduced the fine to $1,500 (see [1990] 1 MLJ 129 ).

The questions of law which the appellant sought to have referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal were as follows:

(1) Whether on the evidence adduced by the prosecution in Police Summons No 0068 of 1987, the speech of the appellant at the opening of the Workers` Party`s premises constituted `public entertainment` within the meaning and scope of that term as defined in the Act.

(2) Whether the purported decision of the public entertainments licensing officer to refuse the Workers` Party a licence for the aforesaid function was a nullity for the following reasons:

(i) that the grounds for the refusal were not shown to be grounds upon which a licence may be lawfully refused under the Constitution, and the refusal in consequence was a violation of art 14(1) of the Constitution which secured the right of the appellant to free speech;

(ii) the refusal was not the decision of the officer to whom Parliament had delegated the decision on applications under the said Act.

(3) Where the public entertainments licensing officer denies a licence under the Act in violation of art 14(1) of the Constitution, whether the applicant to whom the licence was so denied commits any offence if he exercises his constitutional right to freedom of speech on the occasion for which the licence was sought and wrongfully denied.

Section 60 of the SCJA provides as follows:

(1) When an appeal from a decision of a subordinate court in a criminal matter has been determined by the High Court, the judge may on the application of any party and shall on the application of the Public Prosecutor reserve for the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal any question of law of public interest which has arisen in the course of the appeal and the determination of which by the judge has affected the event of the appeal.

...

(5) For the purposes of this section but without prejudice to the generality of its provisions -

(a) any question of law regarding which there is a conflict of judicial authority shall be deemed to be a question of public interest;

(b) the reservation of a question of law for the consideration of the High Court under the provisions of any written law relating to criminal procedure or the exercise by the High Court of any power of revision under any such written law shall be deemed to be an appeal from a decision of a subordinate court in a criminal matter.

The appellant contended that the questions were serious questions of law which had never before been raised in the High Court and that they raised constitutional issues of freedom of speech, and for those reasons they were of public interest. Counsel relied on the observations of the Privy Council in Jeyaretnam v Law Society of Singapore [1988] 3 MLJ 425 on what is a question of public interest under s 60 of the SCJA. In that case, their Lordships said:

The conviction of the appellant on the accounts charge depends on a construction of s 199 of the Penal Code first propounded by the Chief Justice sitting as a single judge and later adopted by judge Foenander and Lai Kew Chai J, which is attacked as bad in law. The convictions on the $2,000 and $200 cheque charges depend on findings of fact by the Chief Justice reversing the primary findings of the trial judge on grounds which are attacked as bad in law. The affirmation by the Chief justice of the conviction by judge Khoo of the $400 cheque charge is attacked as bad in law. The appellant has had no opportunity to test any of the questions of law which he claims are involved by appeal to the Court of Criminal

...