Md Anverdeen Basheer Ahmed and Others v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 18 October 2004
• Neutral Citation: [2004] SGHC 233
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ramesh Tiwary (Edmond Pereira and Partners)
• Published date: 20 October 2004
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Defendant Counsel: N Sreenivasan (Straits Law Practice LLC),Rakesh Vasu (Gomez and Vasu),Thangavelu (Rajah Velu and Co),Sixth appellant in person,Janet Wang (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Charge,Essentials of content,Failure to state violence in charge,Whether this threw into doubt Prosecution's contention that rioting committed,Particulars,Charge did not state who appellants fought with,Whether charge was vague and caused prejudice to appellants.,Sentencing,Appeals,Appeal against sentence imposed,Whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive,Criminal Law,Criminal intimidation, insult and annoyance,Sixth appellant convicted for criminal intimidation,Whether trial judge had erred in accepting evidence that sixth appellant attacked another person,Section 506 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed),Offences,Public tranquillity,Appellants convicted of rioting whilst armed with deadly weapons,Whether certain witnesses' evidence could be relied upon,Whether elements of offence made out,Sections 148 and 149 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed),Statutory offences,First appellant convicted for disorderly behaviour,Whether court should have relied on evidence of certain witnesses,Section 20 Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance) Act (Cap 184, 1987 Rev Ed),Evidence,Proof of evidence,Confessions,Trial judge relied on statements of fifth and sixth appellants in rejecting first appellant's evidence,Whether exculpatory statements of co-accused could be taken into consideration,Section 30 Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)

18 October 2004

Yong Pung How CJ:

1 The appellants, Md Anverdeen Basheer Ahmed (“the first appellant”), Rupesh Kumar (“the second appellant”), Rajendran s/o Rajagopal (“the third appellant”), Sambalingam T (“the fourth appellant”), Natarajan s/o Chinnaiah (“the fifth appellant”) and Retnam Mohandas (“the sixth appellant”), were convicted by District Judge Roy Grenville Neighbour of rioting whilst armed with deadly weapons under s 148 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the PC”). In addition, the first and third appellants were convicted for behaving in a disorderly manner in a public place under s 20 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance) Act (Cap 184, 1987 Rev Ed), and the sixth appellant was convicted of criminal intimidation under s 506 of the PC: see PP v Perumal Naidu Surendra Sean Clinton [2004] SGDC 129. The appellants appealed against both conviction and sentence. I dismissed all the appeals, and now give my reasons.

The facts

2 This case revolved around the events that occurred on the morning of 20 October 2001 along Prinsep Street. The six appellants, together with two other accused persons, Perumal Naidu Surendra Sean Clinton (“Sean Clinton”) and Manogaran s/o Amirpan Ramaiah (“Manogaran”), were alleged to have rioted whilst armed with deadly weapons that morning. The six appellants, Sean Clinton and Manogaran (“the eight accused persons”) all knew each other prior to the incident that occurred on 20 October 2001. The fourth appellant was the father of the second appellant and Sean Clinton was the second appellant’s uncle. The first appellant was Sean Clinton’s friend. The fifth appellant was a close friend of the fourth appellant. The sixth appellant and Manogaran worked in the fourth appellant’s company, and the third appellant was a friend of the fourth appellant. The eight accused persons were all patrons of Mohican’s Pub, a pub along Prinsep Street which the second appellant was a partner of.

The Prosecution’s case

3 The Prosecution’s case was that on the night of 19 October 2001, Sean Clinton, Manogaran and the appellants, with the exception of the second appellant, were having a drinking session together at Jalan Berseh Food Centre (“JBFC”). Subsequently, at about 3.00am on 20 October 2001, the first appellant, third appellant and Sean Clinton went to Mohican’s Pub for drinks. However, they were not served drinks at the pub, and they left, looking disappointed and unhappy.

4 A while later, the second appellant, one of the owners of the pub, arrived at Prinsep Street. He met up with Mohan s/o Ranjangam (“Mohan”),[1] Rajendran s/o Nagarethinam (“Rajendran”)[2] and Selvarajoo s/o Gopal Sellamuthoo (“Appu Rajah”)[3] outside the gate of the pub. An argument ensued between the second appellant and Mohan. The third appellant was present during this argument, and came in between. Thereafter, the second appellant made a telephone call to his father, the fourth appellant.

5 Around this time, the sixth appellant arrived at Prinsep Street in a taxi, and walked towards the second appellant. The fourth appellant also turned up at Prinsep Street around this time. A few minutes later, four vehicles turned in from Middle Road on to Prinsep Street. Sean Clinton, the owner of the first vehicle, alighted and proceeded to talk to the second appellant. He was seen shouting aggressively at a group of male Indians standing outside Mohican’s Pub. Two to three other persons alighted from each of the four vehicles, the fourth appellant being one of them. A knife was also taken out from the boot of Sean Clinton’s car. Thereafter, these persons walked towards Mohican’s Pub. An argument and subsequently a full-blown fight ensued between this group and the staff of Mohican’s Pub. During this fight, wooden poles, knives and an ice pick were used.

6 In addition, Sean Clinton, the third appellant, the sixth appellant and Manogaran were seen climbing over the wall of Mohican’s Pub. They threw beer barrels and metal chairs at the glass panel of the pub, causing it to shatter. The first appellant was seen armed with a dagger and telling the patrons of Mr Bean’s Café, a café oppose Mohican’s Pub, not to interfere. The second appellant was also seen pacing up and down outside Mr Bean’s Café, telling the patrons not to interfere.

7 The sixth appellant, who was armed with a chopper, then approached one Marc Christopher Oliveiro (“Marc”)[4] while he was sitting in his vehicle. The sixth appellant grabbed Marc by the shirt and raised the chopper at him. Marc opened the door of his car and managed to escape. For this act, the sixth appellant was charged with criminal intimidation.

8 After the events, the appellants, together with Sean Clinton and Manogaran, left the scene in three vehicles. The police intercepted the vehicles at the junction of Prinsep Street and Middle Road. The first appellant was arrested for disorderly behaviour, and the other appellants, Sean Clinton and Manogaran were subsequently placed under arrest.

The Defence

9 All the appellants denied the charges made against them. The first appellant said that he was with Sean Clinton at the Indian Association on the night of 19 October 2001. They left after midnight for JBFC. At JBFC, they did not see any of the other accused persons. After staying at JBFC for more than an hour, they went to Mohican’s Pub. The first appellant drove Sean Clinton’s car, as Sean Clinton was tired. As the car entered Prinsep Street, there was some human movement along the road, such that the car had to travel at a very slow pace. The car was then stopped by police officers, who asked the first appellant and Sean Clinton for their identification and particulars. The first appellant subsequently heard a police officer calling out to the sixth appellant, who was walking by, in a rude manner. The first appellant thought that this was improper, and identified himself as a customs officer, telling the police officer that he should address members of the public in a more polite manner. Thereafter, the first appellant was placed under arrest for disorderly behaviour.

10 The second appellant said that he was attending the opening ceremony of a pub on the night of 19 October 2001, and at the opening ceremony, he received several prank calls stating that there was trouble at the pub. He then informed the fourth appellant of the calls so that the fourth appellant could check on the pub. Subsequently, when the second appellant arrived at Prinsep Street, he saw Inspector Sajjad Hussein Shah[5] advising Appu Rajah to lock up the pub, as there were complaints of a commotion at the pub. Appu Rajah did so. As the second appellant was returning to his car, Mohan came towards him and hurled vulgarities at him. He dismissed these rantings and got back into the car. He then saw a scuffle amongst ten to 15 people outside a pub at 72 Prinsep Street. He parked his car directly opposite Prinsep Link. He noticed the fourth appellant’s vehicle coming towards him at that point. The fourth appellant told the second appellant to go home. The fourth appellant then drove off in his car. Subsequently, the second appellant saw the fourth appellant’s and Sean Clinton’s vehicles being stopped at the traffic light. The fourth appellant was subsequently arrested. The second appellant drove the fourth appellant’s car to the police station and the second appellant was arrested after that.

11 The third, fourth and fifth appellants said that they were having drinks at JBFC on the evening of 19 October 2001, together with Manogaran. At JBFC, the fourth appellant received a call from the second appellant, informing him of the prank calls that the second appellant had received. At about 3.30am the next morning, they left JBFC, with the fourth appellant driving the rest home. The third appellant and Manogaran both fell asleep at the back of the vehicle as they were drunk.

12 The fourth appellant then turned into Prinsep Link to check on the pub. He saw the second appellant standing by his car ahead of him, and alighted to speak to him. The fifth appellant also alighted to have a smoke, while the third appellant and Manogaran remained in the car. The fourth appellant told the second appellant to go home. Upon reaching the junction, the fourth appellant’s vehicle was stopped by the police who wanted to check their particulars. They subsequently moved on, but were stopped again by a police patrol car sounding its horn continuously behind them. The fourth appellant’s car was searched and an ice pick was recovered. The third, fourth and fifth appellants and Manogaran were later arrested.

13 The sixth appellant said that he met up with the fourth appellant on the evening of 19 October 2001 for a drinking session. He then became drunk, and could not remember anything else of that evening. The next thing he remembered was being told to go home by a male Indian voice, and subsequently he was arrested at Prinsep Street.

The decision below

14 The trial judge believed the testimony of the Prosecution witnesses who saw the eight accused persons at the scene before and at the time the armed fight broke out. He was satisfied that the witnesses’ identification of all the accused persons was good. He held that the accused persons had taken the law into their own hands by damaging Mohican’s Pub and attacking Mohan. He further held that there was a common object to cause hurt, as some of the accused persons were armed and seen fighting at the scene. The eight accused persons were therefore convicted of rioting with deadly weapons. The sixth appellant was further convicted of criminal intimidation, and the first and third appellants were convicted of disorderly behaviour, the third appellant’s offence being committed at a separate time and place. As the fourth and fifth appellants were above the age of 50 years, they were not liable for caning. The sentence imposed on each of the appellants is summarised in the...