Marites Dela Cruz Martinez v Public Prosecutor and another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 07 March 2011
• Neutral Citation: [2011] SGHC 51
• Plaintiff Counsel: Glenn Knight (Glenn Knight)
• Date: 07 March 2011
• Docket Number: Magistrate’s Appeal No 367 of 2010 (MSC 1713-1714 of 2010)
• Hearing Date: 01 March 2011
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
• Published date: 08 March 2011
• Citation: [2011] SGHC 51
• Defendant Counsel: Eugene Lee and Kevin Yong (Deputy Public Prosecutors),Chen Chee Yen and Rubin Mukkam (Tan Rajah & Cheah)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2011

Choo Han Teck J:

The appellant was a Filipina who was described by the trial judge as a domestic worker for a Dr Ashok Segar (“Dr Segar”) in Singapore. The Public Prosecutor is the first respondent in this appeal. The appellant had helped Dr Segar in treating the second respondent (it may be reasonable to assume that this referred to medical treatment) but denied that she was dispensing medication, and thus regarded the second respondent’s complaints (to the Ministry of Manpower as well as the Singapore Medical Council) that the appellant was dispensing medicine as a “clinic assistant” to be defamatory. Consequently, the appellant felt that she had been defamed by the second respondent’s complaints, and on 25 January 2010 she swore a Magistrate’s Complaint against the second respondent. Summonses were issued charging the second respondent for criminal defamation under s 500 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed). The trial judge stated in her grounds of decision that when the parties appeared for a pre-trial conference (“PTC”), on 7 October 2010, the Public Prosecutor intervened. During the PTC, the Public Prosecutor entered a nolle prosequi and informed the court that it did not intend to pursue the charges against the second respondent. The judge below then discharged and acquitted the second respondent of the charges before her. In so doing, the judge relied on s 184(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) (“CPC”) which provides:

“at any stage of any summary trial before judgment has been delivered, the Public Prosecutor may, if he thinks fit, inform the court that he will not further prosecute the defendant upon the charge and thereupon all proceedings on the charge against the defendant shall be stayed and he shall be discharged from and of the same.”

Section 232 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Act 15 of 2010) (“CPC 2010”) (which came into effect on 2 January 2011) reads as follows:

Public Prosecutor may decline further to prosecute at any stage of trial

232. — (1) At any stage of any proceedings in court — (a) before an accused is acquitted of any charge; or (b) where an accused has been convicted of any charge but before he is sentenced for that charge,

the Public Prosecutor may, if he thinks fit, inform the court that he will not further prosecute the accused upon the charge, and the proceedings on the charge against the accused must then be stayed and he shall be discharged from and of the same.

(2) Except in cases referred to in section 147, a discharge under subsection...