Lee Eng Hock v Public Prosecutor

JurisdictionSingapore
Judgment Date01 February 2002
Date01 February 2002
Docket NumberCriminal Revision No 1 of 2002
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Lee Eng Hock
Plaintiff
and
Public Prosecutor
Defendant

[2002] SGHC 20

Yong Pung How CJ

Criminal Revision No 1 of 2002

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Revision of proceedings–Approach to revisionary powers–Danger of backdoor appeal–Accused pleaded guilty of own volition–Accused informed by court interpreter of nature and consequences of plea–Safeguards to be observed before recording of plea of guilt–Whether serious injustice arose

The petitioner (“Lee”) was charged with certain offences. He admitted without qualification to the statement of facts, pleaded guilty, and was convicted and sentenced. Lee sought a criminal revision, contending that he pleaded guilty to avoid imprisonment as that was how he understood his former counsel's advice, and that he wanted the matter to be quickly disposed of even though he was convinced of his own innocence.

Held, dismissing the petition:

(1) The High Court's power of criminal revision was to be exercised sparingly, and it was not to be used as a convenient form of “backdoor appeal” against conviction for accused persons who had pleaded guilty. Serious injustice, or the fact that there was something palpably wrong in the decision that struck at its basis as an exercise of judicial power by the lower court, had to be shown before the power would be exercised: at [6].

(2) The safeguards to be observed before a plea of guilt was recorded were (a) the accused himself intended to plead, (b) the accused understood the nature and consequences of his plea, and (c) the accused intended to admit without qualification the offence alleged against him: at [7].

(3) There was no reason for the court to exercise its revisionary power. Lee did not show any irregularity in to his plea of guilt which caused serious injustice. First, he pleaded guilty as he himself wanted to do so. He did not prove his claim that his former counsel advised him to plead guilty to avoid imprisonment; on the contrary, he stated in his affidavit that he misunderstood the advice. Second, the court interpreter had informed him of the nature and possible consequences of his plea. Third, he had admitted to the statement of facts without qualification: at [8], [9], [11] to [13].

Bedico Ma Teresa Bebango v PP [2002] 1 SLR (R) 122; [2002] 1 SLR 192 (folld)

Chua Qwee Teck v PP [1990] 2 SLR (R) 571; [1991] SLR 857 (folld)

Ganesun s/o Kannan v PP [1996] 3 SLR (R) 125; [1996] 3 SLR 560 (folld)

R v Peace [1976] Crim LR 119 (refd)

R v Turner [1970] 2 QB 321; [1970] 2 All ER 281 (distd)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 180 (b), 266, 267, 268, 269, 270

Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Rev Ed) ss 3 (1), 3 (2)

Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 1997 Rev Ed) ss 42A, 43 (4)

Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) s 23

Liow Wang Wu Joseph (Straits Law Practice LLC) for the petitioner

Janet Wang (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the respondent.

Yong Pung How CJ

1 This was a petition for a criminal revision arising from the decision of the District Judge Wong Pui Kay (“the judge”). The petitioner pleaded guilty to a charge under s 43 (4) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 1997 Ed) (“RTA”) and to a charge under s 3 (1) of the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Ed) (“MVA”). In respect of the first charge, he was sentenced to three weeks' imprisonment and ordered to be disqualified from driving all classes of vehicles for 18 months. In respect of the second charge, he was fined $700 and ordered to be disqualified from driving all classes of vehicles for 12 months. The disqualification terms were to run concurrently. The petitioner sought a criminal revision.

The charges and offences

2 Only two charges were relevant. The first charge read:

You … are charged that you, on or about the 1st day of December 2000 at about 9.15am, at Ubi Road 1, Singapore, did drive motor lorry YH 114S, when you were under...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Thong Sing Hock v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 2 Marzo 2009
    ...buried, scurrilous and vexatious aspersions against counsel cannot be tolerated. In the words of Yong Pung How CJ in Lee Eng Hock v PP [2002] 1 SLR 364 at [10], “it is undesirable to allow defence counsel to be made convenient scapegoats, on the back of whom ‘backdoor appeals’ are carried t......
  • Lee Cheong Ngan alias Lee Cheong Yuen v Public Prosecutor and Other Applications
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 5 Mayo 2004
    ...also have resulted in grave and serious injustice: Ma Teresa Bebango Bedico v PP [2002] 1 SLR 192 at [8], followed in Lee Eng Hock v PP [2002] 1 SLR 364. The petitioners’ 24 Lee and Chiong raised several issues to substantiate their case for criminal revision. First, various complaints were......
  • Thong Sing Hock v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 2 Marzo 2009
    ...buried, scurrilous and vexatious aspersions against counsel cannot be tolerated. In the words of Yong Pung How CJ in Lee Eng Hock v PP [2002] 1 SLR 364 at [10], “it is undesirable to allow defence counsel to be made convenient scapegoats, on the back of whom ‘backdoor appeals’ are carried t......
  • Gao Hua v PP
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 20 Abril 2009
    ...allegations: at [58] and [59]. Bedico Ma Teresa Bebango v PP [2002] 1 SLR (R) 122; [2002] 1 SLR 192 (refd) Lee Eng Hock v PP [2002] 1 SLR (R) 204; [2002] 1 SLR 364 (refd) Thong Sing Hock v PP [2009] 3 SLR (R) 47; [2009] 3 SLR 47 (refd) Yunani bin Abdul Hamid v PP [2008] 3 SLR (R) 383; [2008......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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