Lim Chuan Huat and Another v Public Prosecutor

• Judgment Date: 07 January 2002
• Date: 07 January 2002
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal Nos 218 and
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Lim Chuan Huat and another

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[2002] SGHC 2

Yong Pung How CJ

Magistrate's Appeal Nos 218 and 219 of 2001

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Charge–Essentials of content–Particulars of time and place–“Various occasions” ambiguous–Whether errors material such as to mislead accused–Sections 159 (1) and 162 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)–Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Charge–Separate charge for distinct offences–Charge duplicitous but each of offences therein capable of being heard at one trial–Trial judge kept each offence separate when convicting–Effect of irregularity in absence of prejudice and failure of justice–Section 168 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)–Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Irregularities in proceedings–Defective charges–Error in charges affected judgment in sentencing discretion but not whether conviction should be founded–Error an irregularity not occasioning failure of justice–Applicable provision in Criminal Procedure Code for cure–Sections 261 and 396 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)–Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Joint trial–Whether assaults formed same transaction–Applicable tests–Whether necessary for all tests to apply–Whether joint trial justified–Section 176 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)

The appellants were charged separately but tried jointly in court for voluntarily causing hurt to their maid on various occasions. They were convicted on their respective charges and sentenced. They appealed against their respective convictions and sentences, arguing that: (a) their respective charges were bad for duplicity; and (b) the trial judge erred in law by proceeding with a joint trial.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The object of s 168 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the CPC”) was to ensure a fair trial and that the accused did not have to defend several unconnected charges or distinct offences lumped together in one charge. Further, the exceptions referred to in s 168 were confined to the rule on joinder of charges and did not apply to duplicity. Hence, a charge alleging two or more distinct offences was duplicitous and in contravention of s 168. The appellants' respective charges were bad for duplicity and breached s 159 (1) as each of the “various occasions” which they were charged with constituted a distinct offence for which a separate charge should have been preferred: at [14].

(2) However, if each of the offences could have been the subject of a separate charge, and could have been proceeded with at one trial, the duplicity was an irregularity which could be cured by s 396 of the CPC. This was provided that the accused was not prejudiced in his defence, and no failure of justice arose due to the irregularity. No such failure arose as the trial judge had kept the evidence against each alleged offence separate when convicting the appellants on their respective charges: at [15] to [17].

(3) Although the charges breached s 159 (1), the error or omission in them was not material and could be cured by s 162 as the appellants were not misled by them and knew the charges they had to meet: at [21] and [23].

(4) In determining whether different acts were part of the “same transaction”, the tests were proximity of time, unity of place, unity of purpose or design, and continuity of action. Unity of purpose was the main test, and it was unnecessary for all the tests to apply for several incidents to form the same transaction. The trial judge did not err in trying the appellants jointly and s 176 of the CPC was not breached as there was not only unity of purpose in their individual acts, but also unity of place and proximity of time: at [28] and [31].

(5) In cases where the error in question was irrelevant for the purpose of determining guilt and only affected the sentence, it was an irregularity that could be cured. The proper remedy was by way of s 261 of the CPC which gave the High Court jurisdiction to maintain or set aside a sentence that was manifestly excessive or inadequate in the circumstances of the case: at [37].

Chuan Hoe Engineering Pte Ltd v PP [1996] 3 SLR (R) 200; [1996] 3 SLR 544 (folld)

Farida Begam d/o Mohd Artham v PP [2001] 3 SLR (R) 592; [2001] 4 SLR 610 (folld)

Manikam v PP [1947] MLJ 90 (distd)

R v Assim [1966] 2 QB 249; [1966] 2 All ER 881 (refd)

Ramachandran v PP [1971-1973] SLR (R) 541; [1972-1974] SLR 383 (folld)

See Yew Poo v PP [1949] MLJ 131 (folld)

Tse Po Chung Nathan v PP [1993] 1 SLR (R) 308; [1993] 1 SLR 961 (folld)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 159 (1), 162, 168, 176, 261 and 396 (consd)

Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 73 (2), 319, 321

Peter Yap (Chor Pee & Partners) for the first appellant

Kertar Singh (Kertar & Co) for the second appellant

Daniel Yong (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the respondent.

Yong Pung How CJ

1 The appellants were separately charged for causing hurt to their maid but were jointly tried in the District Court. Both appellants appealed against their respective convictions and custodial sentence.

2 The charge against the first appellant (“Lim”) reads as follows:

That you, Lim Chuan Huat, M/42 years, are charged that you on various occasions between the 5th day of March 1999 to the 11th day of June 1999, at Blk 295 Choa Chu Kang Avenue 2 #12-159, Singapore, did voluntarily cause hurt to one Suprapti, F/27 years, to wit, by hitting her back, shoulders and hands with your hands and a rattan cane, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 323 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224, read with section 73 (2) of the Penal Code Chapter 224.

3 The charge against the second appellant (“Tan”) reads as follows:

That you, Tan Suan Kheng @ Tan Lim Kheng, F/34 years, are charged that you on various occasions between the 5th day of March 1999 to the 10th day of June 1999, at Blk 295 Choa Chu Kang Avenue 2 #12-159, Singapore, did voluntarily cause hurt to one Suprapti, F/27 years, to wit, by pinching her cheek and pulling her ears, and by hitting her hands with a rattan cane, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 323 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224, read with section 73 (2) of the Penal Code Chapter 224.

4 The district judge convicted both appellants on their respective charges and sentenced each appellant to three months' imprisonment and a fine of $1,500 (in default two months' imprisonment). An offence of voluntarily causing hurt under s 321 of the Penal Code read with s 323 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) carries a maximum fine of $1,000 or a term of imprisonment which may extend to one year, or both. However, as the victim in this case was a domestic maid and the perpetrators her employers, the court, pursuant to s 73 (2) of the Penal Code, may increase the punishment to one and a half times the amount of punishment to which the accused would otherwise have been liable for that offence. The fine of $1,500 each has already been paid.

Facts

5 The victim, Ms Suprapti, an Indonesian, began working as a domestic maid for the appellants on 5 March 1999. Her duties included general household chores as well as looking after the appellants' four-year-old daughter. During the course of her work, the victim was told to maintain a diary to keep a record of the chores she had done and any mistakes which she had made. The victim was also sometimes required to read the diary aloud to either of the appellants. The appellants claimed that they wanted her to record her mistakes in the diary so that she could learn from them and not repeat the same mistakes in future. This was their unusual method of helping the victim improve her work.

6 On 10 June 1999 at about 8.00am, the victim was cooking in the kitchen when Tan came in and asked her why she had not shown or read the diary to her. The victim was told to read the diary 100 times. She stopped after reading it 50 times instead of 100 times as instructed as she was busy with her chores. Tan scolded the victim for not obeying her instructions and proceeded to hit her palms several times with a rattan...