Public Prosecutor v Henry John William and another appeal

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 21 February 2002
• Date: 21 February 2002
• Docket Number: Criminal Revision No 6 of 2002 Magistrate's Appeal No 8 of 2002
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Public Prosecutor

Plaintiff

and

Henry John William and another appeal

Defendant

[2002] SGHC 29

Yong Pung How CJ

Criminal Revision No 6 of 2002 and Magistrate's Appeal No 8 of 2002

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Charge–Alteration–Wording of charges failed to conform with that in relevant statute–Necessary elements of offence not disclosed–Whether amendments to be allowed–Sections 256 and 268 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)–Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Revision of proceedings–High Court's powers in exercise of revisionary jurisdiction–Accused convicted of and sentenced for non-existent offences–Whether power of amendment of charge extends to non-existent offences–Sections 256 and 268 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)–Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Sentencing–Seven years' imprisonment and 18 strokes of cane in respect of seven convictions–Six years imprisonment and 12 strokes of cane accounted for by conviction for robbery with hurt–One year imprisonment and six strokes of cane for remaining offences including possession of offensive weapon–Whether manifestly excessive

The appellant pleaded guilty to seven offences, and was convicted and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment and 18 strokes of the cane. The Prosecution later sought the substitution of amended charges for two of the offences and applied for a criminal revision pursuant to s 268 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the CPC”). This was because the charges were defective as they charged the appellant with non-existent offences. The appellant did not object to the proposed amendments, but appealed against his sentence on the ground that it was excessive.

Held, allowing the application and dismissing the appeal:

(1) The powers granted to the High Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under s 256 of the CPC included the power to amend a charge and consequently convict an accused person of it. Further, its powers of amendment extended to situations where the accused pleaded guilty to non-existent offences: at [5] and [7] to [9].

(2) The charges were defective as their wording failed to conform with that in the statute. The present case was analogous to that of a substituted conviction, and also that where the charge failed to disclose the necessary elements of the offence. The courts had previously allowed applications to amend in both these situations: at [9].

(3) Granting the application would not cause the appellant injustice as he had not objected to the proposed amendments. Further, as the two offences to which the charges related were clearly made out on the facts and were also complete offences, the course of proceedings in the court below would not have taken a different turn had the charges been correctly drawn up in the first place: at [10].

(4) The appellant's total sentence was not manifestly excessive as the bulk of it was taken up by the sentence for robbery with hurt. Further, the additional one year's imprisonment and six strokes of the cane was reasonable given that it was meant to account for the remaining six offences: at [16].

Ang Poh Chuan v PP [1995] 3 SLR (R) 929; [1996] 1 SLR 326 (folld)

Er Joo Nguang v PP [2000] 1 SLR (R) 756; [2000] 2 SLR 645 (refd)

Garmaz s/o Pakhar v PP [1996] 1 SLR (R) 95; [1996] 1 SLR 401 (folld)

Loo Weng Fatt v PP [2001] 2 SLR (R) 539; [2001] 3 SLR 313 (refd)

Ong Tiong Poh v PP [1998] 2 SLR (R) 547; [1998] 2 SLR 853 (refd)

PP v Koon Seng Construction Pte Ltd [1996] 1 SLR (R) 112; [1996] 1 SLR 573 (folld)

Siah Ik Kow v PP [1968] 2 MLJ 217 (refd)

Sivalingam v PP [1982] 2 MLJ 172 (refd)

Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act (Cap 65, 1985 Rev Ed) s 6

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 256, 268 (consd)

Films Act (Cap 107, 1998 Rev Ed) ss 6 (1) (a), 29 (3)

Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 292 (a), 394

Christopher Ong Siu Jin (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the petitioner/respondent

Respondent/appellant in person.

Yong Pung How CJ

1 The appellant pleaded guilty in the District Court to a total of seven offences, which comprised one count of robbery with hurt pursuant to s 394 of the Penal Code (Cap 224), one count of possession of an offensive weapon pursuant to s 6 of the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act (Cap 65), four counts connected with the sale of uncensored...