Public Prosecutor v Chong Kai Xiong and others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 01 April 2010
• Neutral Citation: [2010] SGHC 101
• Plaintiff Counsel: Bala Reddy, John Lu Zhuoren and Peggy Pao Pei Yu (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Docket Number: Magistrate’s Appeal No 317—321 of 2009 (Police Summons No 1344—1348 of 2008)
• Date: 01 April 2010
• Hearing Date: 16 March 2010
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Public Law
• Year: 2010
• Citation: [2010] SGHC 101
• Defendant Counsel: Cheah Wuiling (Law Faculty, National University of Singapore) as Amicus Curiae,First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents in-person
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 01 July 2010

Choo Han Teck J:

This was the public prosecutor’s appeal against the acquittal of the five respondents on a charge under r 5 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) (Assemblies and Processions) Rules (the “Rules”). Rule 5 provided that:

Any person who participates in any assembly or procession in any public road, public place or place of public resort shall, if he knows or ought reasonably to have known that the assembly or procession is held without a permit, or in contravention of any term or condition of a permit, be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000.

The trial judge below found the five respondents who were charged for an offence under r 5 for taking part in a procession without a permit not guilty because the activity in question was not a “procession” within the meaning of the Rules or its parent Act, the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, (Cap 184, 1997 Rev Ed) (the “Act”).

The salient facts relating to the charge as found by the trial judge were as follows. A group of people gathered at the Speakers’ Corner in Hong Lim Park on 16 September 2007. Some of them wore t-shirts emblazoned with the words “Democracy Now” and “Freedom Now” on the front and back, respectively, of the t-shirts. They were joined by other persons and together they walked from the Speakers’ Corner to various places including the Parliament House, the front of the Istana and ending at the Queenstown Remand Prison (“QRP”). The five respondents were members of this group who were arrested and charged.

The trial judge found that the fifth respondent in a green t-shirt was the first to arrive at the Speakers’ Corner at 2.45pm. He was joined by two others in black t-shirts. Subsequently, the first, third and fourth respondents and one Charles Tan as well as one Francis Yong joined them. A little later, the second respondent joined them. About 3.25pm the five respondents and Charles Tan together with four or five others left the park. Only the first to fourth respondents and Charles Tan wore the white t-shirts. The group of nine to ten people walked along South Bridge Road, stopped near Parliament House, where the five persons in the white t-shirts posed for photographs. After that the group of nine or ten continued walking to the Supreme Court building and crossing over to the Funan Digitallife Mall. At that point, PW2, DSP Chan told the second respondent to cease the procession. Apparently the group ignored him and crossed over to the Peninsula Plaza where the first, second, third and fourth respondents distributed pamphlets to the public. The fifth respondent went into the building and re-appeared a short while later and the group continued walking towards Bras Basah Road. At this point, the prosecution’s evidence was unclear as to whether all nine to ten of the original group were still in the group. They walked to Plaza Singapura and arrived at the Istana, and from there, to Centrepoint. The group took a toilet break at Centrepoint. After the break, they continued the walk along Orchard Road, Tanglin Road and ending at QRP.

The trial judge accepted that for the prosecution to succeed it had to prove that – (a) the respondents participated in a procession; (b) the procession took place in a public place; (c) the procession consisted of five or more persons; (d) the procession was to commemorate an event; and (e) the respondents ought reasonably to have known that the procession was held without a permit. The trial judge found that there was no dispute that the event was held in a public place without a permit and that it was to commemorate an event, namely, the first anniversary of the WB-IMF protest held on 16 September 2006. The purpose of the event was posted on the website of the Singapore Democratic Party on 13 September 2007 stating that it was an “event” to commemorate the first anniversary of the protest led by one Dr Chee Soon Juan, the previous year. The event was planned to end at the QRP where Dr Chee was, on 16 September 2007, incarcerated.

The trial judge found that the prosecution had proved its case against all five respondents on all but one of the necessary ingredients of an offence under r 5 and he rejected the defences raised by each of them except for one element of the charge, namely, that the activity of the five respondents did not constitute a procession within the meaning of the Rules or Act. The trial judge referred to the dictionary meaning of the word from three dictionaries, namely, the Cambridge International Dictionary of English (“a line of people who are all walking or travelling in the same direction, esp. in a formal way as part of a religious ceremony or public celebration”); The Oxford English Reference Dictionary (“a number of people on vehicles etc moving forward in orderly succession, esp. at a ceremony, demonstration, or festivity”); and the Collins Dictionary (“1. the act of proceedings in a regular formation 2. a group of people or things moving towards in an orderly, regular, or ceremonial manner”).

In response to the prosecution’s submission that the offence was complete “so long as a group of five or more people walked from one point to another point in a public place to commemorate an event” the trial judge held that it could not agree with that approach because it was a “simplistic interpretation” of the word procession. The court accepted that the group need not proceed in a “structured way” or in a “formation”. He also dismissed the respondents’ other arguments such as that of Mr Yap, the fifth respondent, who claimed that he was not involved, but was there only as an observer. Having perused the evidence, I am of the view that that was an issue of fact which the trial judge rightly found...