Packir Malim v Public Prosecutor

CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
JudgeYong Pung How CJ
Judgment Date01 July 1997
Neutral Citation[1997] SGHC 178
Citation[1997] SGHC 178
Subject MatterWhether petitioner coerced into pleading guilty,Whether sentence manifestly excessive,Revision of proceedings,Whether grounds for revision,s 268 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Sentencing,Theft,Conviction on plea of guilt,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
Plaintiff CounselMichael Kor (Michael Kor & Co)
Defendant CounselJasbendar Kaur (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
Docket NumberCriminal Revision No 6 of 1997
Published date19 September 2003
Date01 July 1997

The petitioner sought revision of his conviction and also appealed against the sentence imposed. Both the application for revision and the appeal were dismissed. I now set out my reasons for dismissing them.

The petitioner pleaded guilty to a charge of committing theft of seven pieces of children`s clothes, and was fined $1,000, two weeks` imprisonment in default. The charge was in the following terms:

You, Packir Malim Bava Fahurudeen Malim, Foreign Identification No F7908704K, are charged that you, on or about 28 February 1997 at or about 8.29pm at No 3 New Bugis Street, at stall no 43, did commit theft of the following items:

a) seven pieces of Chinese clothings valued at a total of $120 (one hundred and twenty dollars) from the said stall belonging to Tian Kian Poh, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 379 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

The plea of guilt was made to an agreed statement of facts. In summary, it stated that on 28 February 1997, at about 8.29pm, the complainant had called the police telling them that he had detained a male Indian who had allegedly stolen some Chinese costumes from his stall. A witness, a helper at the stall, had seen the petitioner behaving suspiciously at some displays outside the stall, and had decided to keep an eye on the petitioner. The witness saw the petitioner put away some costumes into a bag carried by him, after which the petitioner walked off; the witness alerted the complainant, who gave chase and managed to detain the petitioner at a bus stop nearby. The petitioner was subsequently arrested.

He was brought to court eventually. The notes of evidence of the proceedings are reproduced in their entirety:

[Police prosecutor]

Accused in person

Charge marked `P1` read, explained and understood in Tamil.

Pleads guilty. Understands nature and consequences of plea (punishment provided by law explained).

Statement of Facts marked `A` read and admitted without qualification.

Court: Guilty and convicted on the charge.

Prosecutor: Nothing known.

Accused: Please impose a fine. That is all.

Court: Fine $1,000, in default, two weeks` imprisonment.

Exhibits to be returned to the owner.

The magistrate was informed that the petitioner had no antecedents. In mitigation, all that the petitioner prayed for was that only a fine be imposed. The magistrate in her sentencing, noted that the petitioner was a first offender and that there...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Chu Wai Kiu v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • February 14, 2005 it is clear that pleas of guilt by unrepresented persons are not more easily vitiated than by those represented: Packir Malim v PP [1997] 3 SLR 429. 27 Against this background, I did not think that CWK should now, in an appeal against an order of forfeiture, be allowed to tergiversate an......
  • Ngian Chin Boon v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • October 17, 1998
    ...not prejudiced in any way, there are insufficient grounds for the High Court to exercise its revisionary jurisdiction: Packir Malim v PP [1997] 3 SLR 429 . 8.In light of these governing principles of revision, the error in the charge with regards to the place where the petitioner did the al......
  • Chan Chun Yee v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • August 17, 1998
    ...for the claim that he was ignorant of a possible defence because he was unrepresented, this argument had no merit. In Packir Malim v PP [1997] 3 SLR 429 , it was held that pleas of guilt by unrepresented persons were not more easily vitiated than those by represented persons. Rajeevan Edaka......
  • Koh Thian Huat v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • May 30, 2002 unrepresented persons should not be more easily vitiated, even if they were ignorant of some possible defence (Packir Malim v PP [1997] 3 SLR 429). 8 The judge noted that, when the charge was first read to the petitioner, he appeared to understand the proceedings without any difficulty. ......
  • 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