Leong Mun Kwai v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 04 April 1973
• Date: 04 April 1973
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeals Nos 127 and
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Leong Mun Kwai

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[1973] SGHC 10

Wee Chong Jin CJ

Magistrate's Appeals Nos 127 and 127A of 1972

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Sentencing–Statements inciting violence against ministers and community leaders–Statements made at political rally–Whether aggravating factor for purposes of sentencing–Section 505 (c) Penal Code (Cap 103, 1970 Rev Ed)

The appellant was convicted of an offence under s 505 of the Penal Code (Cap 103, 1970 Rev Ed), for using words at a political rally which were likely to incite people to violence against ministers, members of Parliament and community leaders. He was sentenced to one month's imprisonment and a fine of $3,000. He appealed against the conviction and the sentence.

Held, dismissing the appeal and enhancing the sentence to four months' imprisonment in addition to the fine:

Far from being a mitigating factor, the offence being committed at an election rally in times of election is a factor which ought to be taken by the court in assessing sentence against the person convicted. The sentence was manifestly inadequate having regard to the contents of the offending speech and the class of persons against whom there was this likelihood of incitement: at [5].

Penal Code (Cap 103, 1970 Rev Ed) s 505 (c) (consd)

Appellant in person

S Rajendran (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the respondent.

Wee Chong Jin CJ

1 The appellant appears in person to argue this appeal. He was convicted in the lower court of an offence under the Penal Code (Cap 103, 1970 Rev Ed), the codified criminal law of this country, and the particular section is s 505 para (c). One of the points he raises today is that his guilt or his innocence is a question of politics. I hope the day will never come when the guilt or innocence of any one in Singapore is decided by politics. The appellant's guilt or his innocence on this charge is decided by the law of the land, by the courts and by the judges. No one, least of all I think a politician, is above the law and the law is not decided by politicians. The law is enacted by Parliament.

2 Now having made quite clear that the appellant's guilt or his innocence on this charge is judged only by the evidence which is produced in a court of law and by the judge who presides when that evidence is produced, the situation today so far as he is concerned is that he has been so found guilty by a court of law presided over by a judge. He is...