Public Prosecutor v Gue Song Yam

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 26 May 1993
• Neutral Citation: [1993] SGHC 118
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 450/92/013
• Date: 26 May 1993
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1993
• Plaintiff Counsel: Wong Keen Onn (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Citation: [1993] SGHC 118
• Defendant Counsel: Loo Choon Hiaw (Loo & Chong)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Seizure of vehicle used in offence,Exposing goods for sale without a licence,ss 2, 33, 42(8) Environment Public Health Act (Cap 95),Whether vehicle seized 'designed or adapted' for purposes,Public health,Offences,Whether seizure intra vires -Definition of 'stall',Meaning of 'designed or adapted',Criminal Law,Forfeiture of vehicle

Cur Adv Vult

This appeal is brought by the public prosecutor against the decision of the learned magistrate in the court below, in which he declined to make an order forfeiting the respondent`s van which had been used for the purpose of exposing for sale market produce goods without a licence.

The charge

In the court below the respondent pleaded guilty to a charge of using a vehicle, the van in question, in a stationary position on 22 August 1992 in front of premises in Lorong Telok Kurau for the purpose of exposing for sale market produce goods without the required licence, which is an offence under s 33 of the Environment Public Health Act (Cap 95) (`the Act`). He was a first offender. He was convicted and ordered to pay a fine of $500 pursuant to the enforcement section, s 42(1), under which the maximum fine for a first offence is $1,000.

From the statement of facts read out to and admitted by the respondent at the hearing below, it appears that the respondent was spotted conducting the sale of market produce goods to some customers from the van in question, which was in a stationary position, by a public health inspector. On discovering that the respondent did not have a licence, the public health inspector arrested him, and seized the van and goods pursuant to s 42(8) of the Act.

Section 42(8) empowers a police or public health officer or duly authorized public officer to seize and detain a stall, together with any appliances and utensils relating thereto and the food or goods intended or exposed for sale, whether or not they appear to be abandoned, belonging or appearing to belong to or in the possession of a person appearing to be committing or to have committed an offence under (this part of the Act) to await the directions of a magistrate`s court.

A `stall` is defined in s 2 of the Act as meaning:

any table, shed, showboard, vehicle or receptacle or any other means designed or adapted for the purpose of selling food or goods of any kind and which is used or intended to be used for the aforesaid purposes and includes any structure affixed thereto by way of roof, support or flooring; while a `vehicle` within the meaning is defined as:

any vehicle whether mechanically propelled or otherwise and includes a barrow or a cart.

Section 42(14) provides for the mandatory forfeiture of all property validly seized under s 42(8) once the person in possession of the property at the time of seizure is convicted of an offence under s 42(1) by a magistrate`s court.

The decision below

In the court below, the magistrate declined to make an order for forfeiture of the respondent`s van as he opined that it had not been validly seized under the provisions in s 42(8). Section 42(8) mandates the seizure, inter alia, of `any stall`, and thus, as the magistrate held that the van in question did not constitute a `stall` within the parameters of s 42(8) and the definition in s 2, the public health officer`s exercise of his powers of seizure under the Act were done ultra vires, and therefore the magistrate`s obligation to order that the van be forfeited under s 42(14) did not arise. His reasoning was as follows.

First, that although the van in question clearly constitutes a vehicle under its s 2 definition, and although the word `vehicle` is found in the definition of `stall` in s 2, it is not any sort of vehicle (whether mechanically propelled or otherwise) that may be designated a `stall`; by the wording of the definition in s 2, it must be a vehicle `designed or adapted for the purposes of selling food or goods`.

Secondly, that `designed or adapted` in the section denotes a requirement that some positive customizing or modification be done to the vehicle in question, such that that vehicle appears or becomes less suitable for its ordinary purposes, and more suitable, whether by its original extraordinary design or by some subsequent alteration to it, for the purposes of selling goods therefrom.

Thirdly, that the van in question seemed to him to be an ordinary van of ordinary design not much different from that coming straight from the original vendor`s showroom, without any adaptations which even remotely indicated a facilitation for selling goods therefrom. There were not even shelves in the goods compartment of the van, which was left completely bare. The learned...