Public Prosecutor v Mahadi bin Mohamed Daud

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 20 October 1999
• Date: 20 October 1999
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 218 of 1999
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Public Prosecutor

Plaintiff

and

Mahadi bin Mohamed Daud

Defendant

[1999] SGHC 278

Yong Pung How CJ

Magistrate's Appeal No 218 of 1999

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Appeal–Order on forfeiture of bail bond–Whether Public Prosecutor has legal standing to appeal–Sections 247, 362 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)–Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Bail–Show cause hearing–Accused failing to attend court–Partial forfeiture of bail bond and remittance of remainder to surety–Section 361 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)

The respondent (“Mahadi”) was the surety for an accused, who failed to attend his hearing. At the show cause proceedings, Mahadi informed the judge that he had, two days before the hearing, sent a facsimile to the accused in Saudi Arabia reminding him to attend court. He also revealed that the accused provided the bail bond of $15,000.

The judge ordered the forfeiture of $10,000 out of the $15,000 with the remainder remitted to Mahadi. On appeal, a preliminary issue was whether the Public Prosecutor had standing to lodge the appeal.

Held, allowing the appeal:

(1) Show cause proceedings constituted a continuation of the original criminal proceeding, and the Public Prosecutor was a party to proceedings involving bail. As s 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) provided for an appeal against all orders made in respect of bail, the Public Prosecutor had standing to lodge the appeal: at [9] and [10].

(2) Mahadi did not show sufficient cause why the full amount should not be forfeited as he had not done enough to secure the attendance of the accused. In any event, it would be wrong to remit any part of the bail bond to him as (a) it would allow him to profit from the accused's failure to attend court, and (b) the judge had failed to adequately consider the fact that the accused had provided the bail bond with the intention of not returning for his hearing: at [4] and [7].

Loh Kim Chiang v PP [1992] 2 SLR (R) 48; [1992] 2 SLR 233 (refd)

R v Knightsbridge Crown Court, ex parte Newton [1980] Crim LR 715 (refd)

R v Southampton Justices, ex parte Green [1976] QB 11; [1975] 2 All ER 1073 (refd)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68,1985 Rev Ed)ss 247, 361,362 (consd)

David Lim Jit Hee (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the appellant

Rakesh Pokkan Vasu (Chan Kwek & Chong) for the respondent.

Yong Pung How CJ

1 This was the Public Prosecutor's appeal against the order...