Mah Kiat Seng v PP
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Chan Sek Keong CJ |
Judgment Date | 30 May 2011 |
Neutral Citation | [2011] SGCA 28 |
Published date | 21 June 2011 |
Date | 30 May 2011 |
Year | 2011 |
Hearing Date | 26 April 2011 |
Plaintiff Counsel | The applicant in person |
Citation | [2011] SGCA 28 |
Defendant Counsel | Mohamed Faizal and Lee Lit Cheng (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Criminal Motion No 7 of 2011 |
This was an application by the applicant, Mah Kiat Seng, (“MKS”) , who appeared in person, for leave to refer a series of some 26 questions to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Act 15 of 2010) (“s 397 CPC 2010”). As this application to court was made out of the prescribed time, MKS also prayed for an extension of time to make the application. In anticipation that his questions might not have been formulated correctly, he further asked that the court, if it thought it fit, to reframe those questions appropriately.
The backgroundThe present application arose from MKS’ conviction in the District Court of two charges under the Registration of Criminals Act (Cap 268, 1985 Rev Ed) (“RCA”). These charges were, respectively, for his refusal to provide a blood sample (contrary to s 13E(5)(a) of the RCA), and to have his finger impressions and photograph taken (contrary to s 13(2)(a) of the same Act). The District Judge’s (“DJ”) decision can be found at
MKS appealed against the DJ’s decision to the High Court in Magistrate’s Appeal No 184 of 2010 (“MA 184/2010”). The appeal was partially allowed; Choo Han Teck J (“the Judge”) allowed MKS’ appeal in respect of his conviction vis-a-vis the failure to provide a blood sample but dismissed his appeal in respect of the refusal to have his finger impressions and photograph taken. The Judge’s decision in MA 184/2010 can be found at
MKS then applied to the High Court in Criminal Motion No 42 of 2010 (“CM 42/2010”) to reserve 22 questions of law of public interest to the Court of Appeal under s 60(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) (“s 60 SCJA”). The Judge dismissed this application. Section 60 SCJA has since been repealed w.e.f. 1 January 2011 and replaced by s 397 CPC 2010. The Judge’s decision in CM 42/2010 can be found at
Dissatisfied with the Judge’s decision not to reserve those questions of law which he contended were questions of public interest, MKS brought the present Motion (“the Motion”) to obtain what he failed to obtain from the Judge. In the Motion, he listed 26 questions, of which 22 were
The Judge found the 22 questions raised by MKS to be “rambling, repetitious” and was of the view that “many concerned not questions of law but fact”. He summarised the nature of MSK’s complaint to involve two aspects. The first was factual,
On the basis of the prayers set out in the Motion, the main issues which were presented to this court were,
The critical question of the application in the Motion relates to the issue as to whether, of the 26 questions listed, any of them are questions of law of public interest which ought to be reserved for the consideration of this Court. In his oral submission to us, we asked MKS to focus on this critical question. In these grounds, we do not wish to elaborate on the first issue listed at
We thus turn to the second issue (see
MKS’s application in CM 42/2010, made on 15 November 2010, under s 60 SCJA which was then in force, was turned down by the Judge on 10 February 2011. In the meantime, on 2 January 2011, s 397 CPC 2010 came into force and replaced s 60 SCJA. This Motion was his second attempt to have the alleged questions of law referred to the Court of Appeal. Was MKS entitled to do so? It seems to us that MKS was...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Cheong Lay Yong v Muthukumaran s/o Varthan
... ... Option ... … See Min Hong Auto Supply ... Pte Ltd v Loh Chun Seng [1993] 3 SLR 498 ... [emphasis added] ... The Defendants rely on the statement of law emphasized above. However, ... ...
-
AG v Mah Kiat Seng
...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 (refd) Public Service Commission v Lai Swee L......
-
Amarjeet Singh v PP
...(folld) Lee Cheong Ngan v PP [2004] SGHC 91 (refd) Lee Yuen Hong v PP [2000] 1 SLR(R) 604; [2000] 2 SLR 339 (refd) Mah Kiat Seng v PP [2011] 3 SLR 859 (refd) Muhd Munir v Noor Hidah [1990] 2 SLR(R) 348; [1990] SLR 999 (refd) Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario, Re [2013] 3 SLR 258 (refd) Ng Chye Huey......
-
Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v PP
...Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) (“SCJA”) which has since been repealed. As noted by this court in Mah Kiat Seng v Public Prosecutor [2011] 3 SLR 859 (“Mah Kiat Seng”) at [9], the only important difference between s 397 and s 60 of the SCJA is that under s 397, it is the Court of Appeal, and not ......