Lin v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Punch Coomaraswamy J
• Judgment Date: 01 October 1986
• Neutral Citation: [1986] SGHC 36
• Docket Number: Criminal Motion No 30 of 1986
• Date: 01 October 1986
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1986
• Plaintiff Counsel: Rubin (Amarjit Rubin & Partners)
• Citation: [1986] SGHC 36
• Defendant Counsel: Eleanor Wong Siew Yin (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Courts and Jurisdiction,Application to transfer trial from District Court to High Court,s 184(1)(n), (e)(i) & e(ii) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 113, 1980 Reprint),Application on grounds that questions of law of unusual difficulty raised and expedient for the ends of justice,Judges,Transfer of cases

The applicant, Lin Tah Hwa, is on charges of cheating before a District Court. The charges are under s 17 read with s 34 of the Penal Code.

Mr Rubin, counsel for Lin, makes application under s 184(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) (Cap 113, 1980 Reprint) for the case to be transferred and tried in the High Court. He relies upon two paragraphs of that subsection. That subsection, so far as it is material for present purposes, reads:

Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court that -

(b) some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise; or

(e) such an order is expedient for the ends of justice ...,

it may order that -

(ii) any particular criminal case shall be transferred to and tried before the High Court.

In an application of this nature with the substantive proceedings yet to come, it will be wrong for me to state facts beyond those absolutely necessary for the purposes of my decision. I therefore confine myself to such facts. The applicant is the founder director of Lin Securities, a company incorporated under the Companies Act and now subject to winding-up proceedings in Companies Winding-up No 183 of 1986.

Orders have been made in the winding-up proceedings for the determination of various issues arising out of certain documents described as `letters of hypothecation.` These were executed by the company in favour of several banks and relate to shares listed in documents called `Daily Certificates`. These same letters or some of them are also relevant in the criminal proceedings against the applicant.

I will deal first with Mr Rubin`s contentions under s 184(1)(e), ie that a transfer to the High Court `is expedient for the ends of justice`. He argues that there is a likelihood of `grave danger and prejudice` as the District Court hearing his case will be influenced by any pronouncements of the High Court in the winding-up proceedings where the applicant is neither a party nor a person with a right to a hearing.

He further argues that the supreme needs of justice require that `the inconsistencies and multiplicities of findings` which are likely in view of the numerous applications involving differently-worded letters of hypothecation to different banks in the winding-up proceedings should be avoided and that this can only be avoided by a transfer to the High Court.

To my mind, if the dangers to which Mr Rubin refers are a real possibility, there is an equal likelihood of one High Court judge being influenced by the decision of another High Court judge. The fears that Mr Rubin has, even if justified, will not be removed by a transfer of this case to the High Court.

In my view, therefore, the likelihood of similar issues arising out of identical or similar transactions or even the very same transactions in two different courts, one dealing with a civil matter and the other with a criminal one, do not bring the case within the provisions of s 184(1)(e).

I now turn to s 84(1)(b). The elements in the charge of cheating are set out in the Penal Code, s 415. They are elements that have frequently been dealt with by the subordinate courts.

Under para (b), the only issue on which the application was urged before me is that the case involves the law on letters of hypothecation and the law of banking and securities. The points of law involved in `hypothecation` transactions were described as novel; in fact, they may well be. Novelty in a point of law however does not by itself make that point `a question of law of unusual difficulty`. If the material law governing the transaction, on banking and on securities, is relevant to the cheating charges, it is the task of the prosecution and of defence counsel to place fully and comprehensively with appropriate citation from authorities, the law before the court hearing the case. In my view, therefore, the ground under para (b) fails.

In this context, it is pertinent to look at the history of s 184. Until 1900 there was no comprehensive code for criminal procedure in force in Singapore and the other territories, then comprising the Straits Settlements. The law relating to criminal procedure was to be found in...