Mah Kiat Seng v Public Prosecutor

JudgeChoo Han Teck J
Judgment Date01 March 2011
Neutral Citation[2011] SGHC 47
Plaintiff CounselApplicant in-person
Docket NumberCriminal Motion No 42 of 2010
Date01 March 2011
Hearing Date10 February 2011
Subject MatterCriminal Law
Published date02 March 2011
Citation[2011] SGHC 47
Defendant CounselMohamed Faizal (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Choo Han Teck J:

This was an application by the applicant to reserve questions of law to the Court of Appeal. It arose from an appeal by the applicant in respect of his conviction on two charges under the Registration of Criminals Act (Cap 268, 1985 Rev Ed). One charge was preferred under s 13E(5)(a) for refusing to provide a blood sample. The other was under s 13(2)(a) to have his finger impressions and photograph taken. I allowed the appeal in respect of the first and dismissed the other. The facts and my grounds of decision of those appeals are set out in Mah Kiat Seng v Public Prosecutor [2010] SGHC 320.

The relevant facts of this application concerned his refusal to give his finger impressions to the police after he was arrested on suspicion of having committed an offence of causing grievous hurt. He was not subsequently charged for the offence under investigation but was charged for the offences under the Registration of Criminals Act (Cap 268, 1985 Rev Ed) when he declined to comply with the requests by the police. So far as the charge relating to the refusal to provide his blood sample was concerned, I allowed the appeal when the Public Prosecutor conceded that the express procedure was not followed in that the applicant was not produced before a Magistrate for a determination that the blood sample would be necessary.

In respect of the second charge, the only relevant point of law here and in the appeal previously, was whether the applicant was obliged in law to have his finger impressions and photograph taken.

In this application the applicant recited 22 questions of law for reference to the Court of Appeal under s 60 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed). In this regard, the questions were rambling, repetitious and many concerned not questions of law but fact. Since the applicant is now, as was in the appeal hearing, unrepresented by counsel, it would be helpful to summarise the nature of his complaint. There were two aspects. The first was factual – whether the police had made the request for him to provide his finger impressions and photograph. The trial judge found that they had. The appellant was dissatisfied with the trial judge’s decision and on it, he (the appellant) enunciated a long list of questions which he claims to be questions of law of public interest.

Although s 60(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) admits of more than one question of law to be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • AG v Mah Kiat Seng
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 12 September 2013
    ...[2006] 2 SLR (R) 565; [2006] 2 SLR 565 (refd) Lai Swee Lin Linda v AG [2008] 2 SLR (R) 794; [2008] 2 SLR 794 (refd) Mah Kiat Seng v PP [2011] 3 SLR 122 (refd) Mah Kiat Seng v PP [2011] 3 SLR 859 (refd) Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v PP [2013] 2 SLR 141 (refd) PP v Mah Kiat Seng [2010] SGDC 315......
  • Mah Kiat Seng v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 30 May 2011
    ...1 January 2011 and replaced by s 397 CPC 2010. The Judge’s decision in CM 42/2010 can be found at Mah Kiat Seng v Public Prosecutor [2011] SGHC 47 (“MKS v PP (CM)”). Dissatisfied with the Judge’s decision not to reserve those questions of law which he contended were questions of public inte......

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