Mah Kiat Seng v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 01 March 2011
• Neutral Citation: [2011] SGHC 47
• Plaintiff Counsel: Applicant in-person
• Docket Number: Criminal Motion No 42 of 2010
• Date: 01 March 2011
• Hearing Date: 10 February 2011
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law
• Published date: 02 March 2011
• Citation: [2011] SGHC 47
• Defendant Counsel: Mohamed Faizal (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2011

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...