Mohamed Razip and Others v Public Prosecutor

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgePunch Coomaraswamy J
Judgment Date01 October 1987
Neutral Citation[1987] SGCA 15
Docket NumberCriminal Appeals Nos 3, 4 and 5 of 1986
Date01 October 1987
Year1987
Published date19 September 2003
Plaintiff CounselS Vellupillai (Donaldson & Burkinshaw),Peter Fernando (Leo Fernando),N Vijaykumar (Vijay & Co)
Citation[1987] SGCA 15
Defendant CounselBala Reddy (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
CourtCourt of Appeal (Singapore)
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

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.

(3) An appeal by the Public Prosecutor shall be either against the acquittal of an accused person or against the sentence imposed upon an accused person by the High Court.

(4) An appeal may lie on a question of fact or a question of law or on a question of mixed fact and law.

(5) The Court of Criminal Appeal shall also have jurisdiction to hear and determine matters brought before it in accordance with section 59 or 66.



Sections 59 and 60 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) have no relevance to the proceedings before us.
The key words in s 44(1) are `any decision made by the High Court in the exercise of its original criminal jurisdiction`.

Section 44, before it was repealed and substituted in its present form by the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Act 1973, was in the following terms:

(1) The Court of Criminal Appeal shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any appeal by a person convicted by the High Court in the exercise of its original criminal jurisdiction, subject nevertheless to the provisions of this 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.

(3) An appeal may he on a question of fact or a question of law or on a question of mixed fact and law.

(4) The Court shall also have jurisdiction to hear and determine matters brought before it in accordance with the provisions of ss 58, 59...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Public Prosecutor v Knight Glenn Jeyasingam
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 15 April 1999
    ... ... are brought through the petitioner`s Member of Parliament (as was the case below), while others are brought personally, or by the accused person`s representative. The prosecution submitted that ... ...
  • Ng Chye Huey and another v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (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)......
  • Microsoft Corp and Others v SM Summit Holdings Ltd and Another (No 2)
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 9 March 2000
    ... ... Summit Holdings is a public company and was, at the material time, listed on the SESDAQ Board of the ... or order of a criminal court except such as provided by law: Mohamed Razip & Ors v PP [1987] 2 SLR 142 , 143. The authority for this ... question of law referred to it by the High Court or the public prosecutor. Under s 59 the court has jurisdiction to determine any question of law ... ...
  • Ang Cheng Hai and Others v Public Prosecutor and another appeal
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 31 August 1995
    ... ... He relied on the decision of Mohamed Razip bin Fadzillah & Ors v PP ... This case raised the question whether there was a right of appeal against an order of the High Court in respect of a ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2006, December 2006
    • 1 December 2006
    ...to the provisions of the SCJA: see, for example, Wong Hong Toy v PP[1984—1985] SLR 293 (‘Wong Hong Toy (No 1)’) at 304, Mohamed Razip v PP[1987] SLR 142 at 143, Wong Hong Toy v PP[1994] 2 SLR 396 (‘Wong Hong Toy (No 2)’) at 405, Abdullah bin A Rahman v PP[1994] 3 SLR 129 at 132 and Microsof......
  • KNIGHT GLENN JEYASINGAM V PP A MATTER OF FIRST PRINCIPLES
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 1998, December 1998
    • 1 December 1998
    ...at 482 was cited with approval. 18 [1995] 1 All ER 93 at 108d—e. 19 See paragraph 14 at page 10 of the transcript of the judgment. 20 [1988] 1 MLJ 84. 21 Criminal Appeal No 18 of 1995. 22 On the requirement of finality of judgments or orders in civil cases, see Ling Kee Ling v Leow Leng Sio......
  • COMPOSITION LESSONS
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 1999, December 1999
    • 1 December 1999
    ...Glenn Jeyasingam v PP, Magistrate’s Appeal No 169 of 1998, Criminal Revision No 16 of 1998 6 See Mohamaed Razip bin Fadzillah & Ors v PP[1988] 1 MLJ 84 and Knight Glenn Jeyasingam v PP, Magistrate’s Appeal No 169 of 1998, Criminal Revision No 16 of 1998, unreported 7 Magistrate’s Appeal No ......

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