Mohamed Razip and Others v Public Prosecutor

CourtCourt of Three Judges (Singapore)
JudgePunch Coomaraswamy J
Judgment Date01 October 1987
Neutral Citation[1987] SGCA 15
Citation[1987] SGCA 15
Plaintiff CounselS Vellupillai (Donaldson & Burkinshaw),Peter Fernando (Leo Fernando),N Vijaykumar (Vijay & Co)
Subject Matterss 44 & 51 Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322),Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Nature of order on a bail application,Bail pending appeal,ss 217(1), 241 & 354 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Whether Court of Criminal Appeal can hear an appeal from such an order,Bail
Defendant CounselBala Reddy (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
Docket NumberCriminal Appeals Nos 3, 4 and 5 of 1986
Published date19 September 2003
Date01 October 1987

Cur Adv Vult

(delivering the judgment of the court): Factual background

The three accused in these Criminal Appeals were charged with the offence of rape under s 376 of the Penal Code. Rape is a non-bailable offence, as provided in Sch A to the Criminal Procedure Code. The preliminary inquiry into charges was held in the Subordinate Courts on 19 December 1985 at the conclusion of which the accused were committed for trial in the High Court.

Counsel for each of the accused then applied, by way of criminal motions, to the High Court for the accused to be admitted to bail pending their trial. These applications were made pursuant to what is now s 354 of the Criminal Procedure Code (1985 Rev Ed). (All references to statutory provisions hereinafter shall be to the 1985 Rev Ed of the Statutes.) The applications came before Sinnathuray J who refused to grant bail but directed an early trial instead.

The three accused appealed against the decision of the learned judge. We dismissed all the appeals. We now give our reasons.

Is an order on a bail application appealable?

Section 354 of the Criminal Procedure Code is as follows:

(1) The High Court may, in any case whether there is an appeal on conviction or not, direct that any person shall be admitted to bail or that the bail required by a police officer or Magistrate`s Court or District Court shall be reduced or increased.

(2) The High Court may at any stage of any proceeding under this Code cause any person who has been released under this section to be arrested and may commit him to custody.

In Singapore, there is no general right of appeal in criminal cases except such as is provided by law. This is made clear by s 241 Criminal Procedure Code which provides:

No appeal shall lie from a judgment, sentence or order of a criminal court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force.

The Criminal Procedure Code contains no provision for an appeal against an order of the High Court made under s 354 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellants can only appeal under `any other law for the time being in force.

We now turn to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. Section 44, which spells out the jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeal to entertain appeals from the High Court, reads:

(1) The Court of Criminal Appeal shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any appeal against any decision made by the High Court in the exercise of its original criminal jurisdiction, subject nevertheless to the provisions of this Act or any other written law regulating the terms and conditions upon which such appeals may be brought.

(2) An appeal by a person convicted shall be either against the conviction or against the sentence or against both: Provided that where an accused person has pleaded guilty and been convicted on such plea there shall be no appeal except as to the extent or legality of the sentence.


To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Public Prosecutor v Knight Glenn Jeyasingam
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 15 April 1999
    ...Pte Ltd v PP [1994] 2 SLR (R) 216; [1994] 2 SLR 760 (refd) Maleb bin Su v Public Prosecutor [1984] 1 MLJ 311 (folld) Mohamed Razip v PP [1987] SLR (R) 525; [1987] SLR 142 (folld) Mohd Amin Bros v Dominion of India (1950) FC 77 (folld) Narayan Sahu v Sushama Sahu (1992) Cri LJ 2912 (refd) Pu......
  • Ng Chye Huey and another v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 24 January 2007
    ...1 SLR (R) 423; [2000] 2 SLR 137 (folld) Mohamed Hiraz Hassim v PP [2005] 1 SLR (R) 622; [2005] 1 SLR 622 (refd) Mohamed Razip v PP [1987] SLR (R) 525; [1987] SLR 142 (folld) Mohamed Saleem Ismail, Re [1987] SLR (R) 380; [1987] SLR 369 (refd) Muhamad Ali bin Hamid, Re [1999] 2 MLJ 703 (refd)......
  • Kee Leong Bee and Another v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 1 July 1999
    ...of appeals from the High Court to the Court of Appeal as well as from the Subordinate Court to the High Court; see Mohamed Razip v PP [1987] SLR 142 [1988] 1 MLJ 84 , Ang Cheng Hai & Ors v PP [1995] 3 SLR 201 and Knight Glenn Jeyasingam v PP (Unreported) . It was submitted by the Public Pro......
  • Ang Cheng Hai and Others v Public Prosecutor and another appeal
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 31 August 1995
    ...v PP [1995] 1 SLR (R) 388; [1995] 1 SLR 687 (refd) Kulwant v PP [1985-1986] SLR (R) 663; [1986] SLR 239 (not folld) Mohamed Razip v PP [1987] SLR (R) 525; [1987] SLR 142 (folld) Wong Hong Toy v PP [1985-1986] SLR (R) 371; [1984-1985] SLR 298 (refd) Constitution of the Republic of Singapore ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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