Miya Manik v Public Prosecutor and another matter
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Judge | Sundaresh Menon CJ |
Judgment Date | 22 September 2021 |
Neutral Citation | [2021] SGCA 90 |
Citation | [2021] SGCA 90 |
Defendant Counsel | Kumaresan s/o Gohulabalan, Andre Chong and Grace Chua (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Plaintiff Counsel | Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam, Chooi Jing Yen and Joel Wong En Jie (Eugene Thuraisingam LLP) |
Hearing Date | 12 August 2021 |
Published date | 25 September 2021 |
Docket Number | Criminal Motions Nos 6 and 23 of 2021 |
Subject Matter | Adducing fresh evidence,Criminal motions,Abuse of process,Appeal,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing |
We have, in recent times, repeatedly cautioned against the improper invocation of our processes. Despite our exhortations, from time to time vexatious or frivolous proceedings have been issued, applications have been brought that blatantly disregard the fact that we have a single-tier framework of appeal, and patently hopeless applications have been filed. In
The two criminal motions before us arose in respect of Mr Miya Manik’s (“Manik’s”) pending appeal in CA/CCA 26/2020 (“CCA 26”). That is an appeal against the sentence that was meted out to him following a trial in the General Division of the High Court (“High Court”). Manik filed CA/CM 6/2021 (“CM 6”) seeking to adduce fresh evidence to aid his appeal. The evidence took the form of two medical reports prepared by Dr Ung Eng Khean (“Dr Ung”) who acted in the capacity of a psychiatrist engaged by the Singapore Prisons Service (“Prisons”). The Prosecution objected to Manik’s application but also filed CA/CM 23/2021 (“CM 23”), seeking to adduce medical evidence to address and refute Dr Ung’s reports in the event we were minded to allow Manik’s application.
Following a hearing on 12 August 2021, we dismissed CM 6 with brief oral remarks, and made no order on CM 23. However, in the light of several troubling aspects of Manik’s case in CM 6, we issue these grounds of decision. We feel constrained to do so not because there are any merits in the applications or because they raise any novel or contentious issues; instead, we do so because of the
We note at the outset that based on the parties’ affidavits and written submissions, it was not at all evident what the point of CM 6 was. Although it was said to be an application to adduce further evidence to aid Manik’s appeal, it was not clear how the fresh evidence that Manik sought to introduce would have any bearing on his appeal in CCA 26, either as a matter of law or of fact. Nor did it seem to us that counsel had even considered this most basic point.
At the oral hearing on 12 August 2021, we expressed our concerns and having heard from Manik’s counsel, Mr Eugene Thuraisingam (“Mr Thuraisingam”), it became patently obvious that CM 6 was a hopeless application. Aside from this, having reviewed the material that was before us, we had concerns over certain aspects of Dr Ung’s actions.
In these grounds, we address the merits of CM 6, before elaborating on the concerns that we have outlined above.
Background and procedural history The factsWe begin with a brief account of the facts that led to Manik’s conviction and sentencing in the High Court, which is what led to CCA 26. On 24 September 2016, one Munshi Abdur Rahim (“Rahim”) was attacked by three men in the vicinity of a foreign worker dormitory at Tuas South Avenue 1. Rahim was the member of a contraband cigarette syndicate, and his assailants were from a rival syndicate. Rahim died of his injuries.
On 30 September 2016, Manik was arrested and investigated for causing the death of Rahim. It transpired that Manik was one of the three men who attacked Rahim. He was charged with murder under s 300(
Manik’s trial commenced on 9 January 2020, which was three years, three months and ten days after he had been arrested. The trial spanned 11 days between 9 January and 27 February 2020. The High Court judge (“the Judge”) who heard the matter reserved judgment.
The decision below On 18 June 2020, the Judge delivered judgment acquitting Manik of murder, and convicting him on a substituted charge under s 326 read with s 34 of the Penal Code for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means pursuant to a common intention: see
Manik was sentenced on 20 July 2020. The Judge made reference to the sentencing frameworks set out in
The Judge disagreed. Referring to
Having considered the relevant mitigating and aggravating factors, the Judge meted out a sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane: GD at [130]. She found this to be appropriate having regard to the comparable sentencing precedents: GD at [131]–[133].
Events leading to the present applicationsOn 22 June 2020, the Prosecution filed CA/CCA 16/2020. This was its appeal against the Judge’s decision to acquit Manik of murder under both the Primary Charge and the Common Intention Charge. Following this, on 28 July 2020, Manik filed CCA 26, which appeal was limited to the question of his sentence. Both appeals are pending.
Almost six months after filing CCA 26, on 14 January 2021, Manik filed CM 6. This led, as we have noted, to the Prosecution filing CM 23 on 29 June 2021.
The new evidence Dr Ung’s Reports The new evidence Manik wished to adduce comprised two reports issued by Dr Ung on 22 September and 22 October 2020 (collectively, “Dr Ung’s Reports”).1 Each Report is about a page long. The Reports contain the following assertions or information:
The Reports also do not state the diagnostic criteria...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v AG
...Jabing v AG [2016] 3 SLR 1273 (refd) Kho Jabing v PP [2016] 3 SLR 135 (refd) Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 (refd) Miya Manik v PP [2021] 2 SLR 1169 (refd) Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v AG [2018] SGHC 112 (refd) Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingan v PP [2011] 4 SLR 1156, CA (refd) Nagaenth......
-
Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Attorney-General and another matter
...made by the Defence, the first condition (of “non-availability”) is applied in an attenuated way; and in Miya Manik v Public Prosecutor [2021] 2 SLR 1169 (“Miya Manik”) (at [32]), we set right the misapprehension that in Ariffan, we had displaced the condition of non-availability as a relev......
-
Lim Oon Kuin v Ocean Tankers (Pte) Ltd
...M2B World Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Matsumura Akihiko [2015] 1 SLR 325 (refd) Mah Kiat Seng v PP [2021] SGCA 79 (refd) Miya Manik v PP [2021] 2 SLR 1169 (refd) Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa [2021] 2 SLR 584 (refd) Parakou Shipping Pte Ltd v Liu Cheng Chan [2017] SGHC 15 (refd) Progen Engineer......
-
Pradeepto Kumar Biswas v Sabyasachi Mukherjee
...Arip v PP [2021] 2 SLR 1198 (refd) Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 (folld) Mah Kiat Seng v PP [2021] SGCA 79 (refd) Miya Manik v PP [2021] 2 SLR 1169 (refd) Muhd Munir v Noor Hidah [1990] 2 SLR(R) 348; [1990] SLR 999 (folld) Naseer Ahmad Akhtar v Suresh Agarwal [2015] 5 SLR 1032 (refd) On......
-
Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
...in (2020) 21 SAL Ann Rev 486 at 486–494, paras 15.1–15.23. 25 Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Public Prosecutor [2021] 2 SLR 377 at [67]. 26 [2021] 2 SLR 1169. 27 [1954] 1 WLR 1489. 28 Of non-availability, relevance and credibility. 29 Miya Manik v Public Prosecutor [2021] 2 SLR 1169 at [82]. 30......