Mohamed Hisham bin Sapandi v PP

JurisdictionSingapore
Judgment Date18 August 2011
Date18 August 2011
Docket NumberCriminal Motion No 42 of 2011
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Mohamed Hisham bin Sapandi
Plaintiff
and
Public Prosecutor
Defendant

Choo Han Teck J

Criminal Motion No 42 of 2011

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing—Bail—Applicant charged with offence punishable with maximum sentence of 20 years' imprisonment—Subordinate Court denying bail on ground that it had no jurisdiction—Whether imprisonment for term of 20 years or more referred to offences with maximum sentence of 20 years or offences with minimum sentence of 20 years—Whether High Court had overriding discretion to grant bail—Sections 95 (1) (a) and 97 (1) Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Act 15 of 2010) —Sections 351, 352 and 354 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)

The Applicant was charged with eight charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) (‘MDA’) and three charges under the Moneylenders Act (Cap 188, 1985 Rev Ed.) . As he was charged with an offence punishable with a maximum sentence of 20 years' imprisonment, the Subordinate Court denied him bail on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to do so by virtue of s 95 (1) (a) Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Act 15 of 2010) (‘CPC 2010’) . The Applicant contended that the Subordinate Court possessed the requisite jurisdiction to grant bail.

Held, allowing the application:

(1) The phrase ‘offences punishable with imprisonment for a term of 20 years or more’ in s 95 (1) (a) of CPC 2010 should be given its plain and literal meaning to refer to only offences with a minimum sentence of 20 years or more: at [4].

(2) The contrary interpretation that the phrase should refer to offences with maximum sentences of 20 years or more would lead to a further expansion of s 95 (1) (a) beyond the intention of Parliament, especially since offences attracting maximum sentences of 20 years' imprisonment or more covered a wide sentencing range. Given that the other offences falling within s 95 (1) (a) of CPC 2010 were those punishable with death or imprisonment for life, it was more reasonable to read that as referring only to offences where the minimum sentence was 20 years or more: at [6].

(3) Section 351 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) (‘the old CPC’) (the predecessor to s 92 of the CPC 2010) and s 352 of the old CPC (the predecessor to ss 93 and 95 of the CPC 2010) , dealing with bail in the case of bailable and non-bailable offences respectively, should apply only to the Subordinate Court as the consequences of construing these provisions to apply to the High Court would be awkward or absurd. Further, the mention of the High Court in only s 354 of the old CPC (the predecessor to s 97 (1) of the CPC 2010) and not ss 351 and 352 had to be deliberate and hence subject to the expressio unius est exclusio alterius rule of interpretation: at [8].

(4) Sections 93 and 95 of the CPC 2010 applied only to the Subordinate Court but not to the High Court. If s 352 (1) of the old CPC applied to the High Court, then the courts would continue to retain some measure of discretion in the determination of whether there appeared ‘reasonable grounds’ for believing that an accused was guilty of an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment such that bail could not be granted. In contrast, if the newly worded s 95 (1) (a) of the CPC 2010 also applied to the High Court, then bail would be totally prohibited once the Prosecution decided to charge an accused with an offence falling within s 95 (1) (a) , and the discretion of any court totally ousted. That could not be the intention of Parliament because such a drastic change in the law would require clear and express Parliamentary language. Since s 93 provided that the court had power to grant bail save in the instances covered by s 95 (1) , there would have been no need for s 97 (1) if the High Court's powers were also subject to s 95 (1) . Section 97 (1) , which stated that ‘the High Court may grant bail to any accused before it’, had to mean what it said. It meant that the High Court could grant bail even to accused persons charged with offences falling within s 95 (1) (a) : at [9] and [10].

Abul Khabir Uddin Tohron Nisa v PP [2006] SGHC 57 (folld)

Gurcharan Singh v State (1978) 1 SCC 118; 1978 SCC (Cri) 41 (refd)

K S Menon, Re [1946]...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Fatimah bte Kumin Lim v AG
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 6 November 2013
    ...(refd) King Emperor v Nga San Htwa AIR 1927 Rang 205 (refd) Lim Meng Suang v AG [2013] 3 SLR 118 (refd) Mohamed Hisham bin Sapandi v PP [2011] 4 SLR 868 (not folld) Nacif-Borge, Re the Extradition of 829 F Supp 1210 (1993) (refd) Parretti v US 122 F 3 d 758 (9th Cir, 1997) (refd) PP v Dato'......
  • Christanto Radius v PP
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 24 May 2012
    ...been relied upon by courts in other jurisdictions: at [6] and [12] to [16]. (3) Although the court in Mohamed Hisham bin Sapandi v PP [2011] 4 SLR 868 (‘Hisham’) was dealing with s 95 (1) (a) (which related to bail for ‘offences punishable with imprisonment for a term of 20 years or more’),......
  • Fatimah bte Kumin Lim v Attorney-General
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 6 November 2013
    ...in the circumstances.5 The Applicant relied heavily on the decisions of the High Court in Mohamed Hisham bin Sapandi v Public Prosecutor [2011] 4 SLR 868 (“Hisham”) and Christanto Radius v Public Prosecutor [2012] 3 SLR 749 (“Christanto”) and a statement made by Mr K Shanmugam, the Minister......
  • Christanto Radius v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 24 May 2012
    ...to the High Court’s powers in s 97 of CPC 2010, was discussed in this Court’s decision inMohamed Hisham bin Sapandi v Public Prosecutor [2011] 4 SLR 868 (“Hisham”). It was there held that the High Court’s discretion in s 97 is unfettered by s 95(1) CPC 2010 which solely applies to the Subor......
2 books & journal articles
  • Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2013, December 2013
    • 1 December 2013
    ...(as his Honour readily conceded) at odds with an earlier decision of the High Court, viz, Mohamed Hisham bin Sapandi v Public Prosecutor[2011] 4 SLR 868, a case which was reviewed in (2011) 12 SAL Ann Rev 243 at 250–251, paras 13.21–13.23. In the light of the conflict of authorities, it wou......
  • Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2011, December 2011
    • 1 December 2011
    ...of CPC 2010 respectively. 13.22 In the circumstances, the decision of the High Court in Mohamed Hisham bin Sapandi v Public Prosecutor[2011] 4 SLR 868 (Mohamed Hisham bin Sapandi v PP) which served to clarify the relationship between the two provisions ought to be welcomed. In that case, Ch......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT