Public Prosecutor v Yan Jun

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Shawn Ho
• Judgment Date: 02 September 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] SGMC 51
• Court: Magistrates' Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 01 September 2022,25 August 2022,26 August 2022
• Docket Number: Magistrate Arrest Case No. 904285 of 2022 & Ors, Magistrate's Appeal No. 9180/2022/01
• Plaintiff Counsel: Sean Teh and Timothy Ong (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Accused in Person.
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Escalation Principle
• Published date: 21 September 2022

District Judge Shawn Ho: Introduction

The Accused, Yan Jun, claimed trial to two charges: Taking part in a public assembly for which no permit had been granted (“public assembly charge”): s 16(2)(a) punishable under s 16(3)(b) of the Public Order Act 2009, and Behaving in a disorderly manner in a public place by shouting in a loud voice (“disorderly behaviour charge”): s 20 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act 1906 punishable under s 50T(1)(a) of the Prisons Act.

All things considered, the Prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the Accused. He was convicted on both charges.

He was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment, an enhanced sentence of 53 days, and a fine of $5000 i/d 6 months’ imprisonment. He has appealed against conviction and sentence.

Charges

The Accused faced two charges:

You, on 12 June 2022, at or about 2:17 pm, in front of the Embassy of the United States located at No. 27 Napier Road, Singapore, did take part in a public assembly in respect of which no permit had been granted, to wit, (a) by displaying a placard demonstrating opposition to the actions of the US government with the words “Protest against CIA agent David Roach for spying on me in Changi Prison!”; (b) by displaying a placard demonstrating opposition to the actions of the US, Singapore and Canadian governments with the words “President Biden, PM Lee and PM Trudea: Justify the Roach espionage scandal!” (c) by displaying a placard demonstrating opposition to the actions of the Singapore Judiciary with the words “Singapore’s Legal System is totally corrupt!”; (d) by displaying a placard demonstrating opposition to the actions of the People’s Republic of China government, with the Chinese characters “抗议中国政府无视新加坡政府在华间谍活动!”, which means “Protest against the Chinese government for ignoring Singapore’s government's spy activities in China!” in English; (e) by displaying a placard demonstrating opposition to the actions of the Hong Kong government, with the Chinese characters “抗议香港政府在装甲车阴谋事件中出卖中国主权!”:, which means “Protest against the Hong Kong government for betraying the sovereignty of China in the armoured vehicles conspiracy!” in English; (f) by displaying a placard demonstrating opposition to the actions of the People’s Action Party Singapore government with the words “PAP: Justify the Roach espionage scandal before the GE!”; (g) by displaying a placard demonstrating opposition to the actions of the Parliament of the United Kingdom with the words “Boris Johnson no-confidence veto is a conspiracy!” (h) by displaying a placard demonstrating opposition to the actions of the People’s Action Party Singapore government with the words “Referendum on the legitimacy of the PAP government!” (i) by displaying a placard demonstrating opposition to the actions of the Singapore Prison Service with the words “CHANGI PRISON IS A SLAVE CAMP!”;

and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 16(2)(a) of the Public Order Act 2009;

And further, that you, before the commission of the said offence, were, on 03 February 2022, in State Court 10B, vide MAC-906299-2021, convicted of an offence punishable under s 16(2)(a) of Public Order Act (Cap 257A, 2012 Rev Ed), and sentenced to a fine of $5,000 (in default five (5) months’ imprisonment), which conviction and punishment have not been set aside to date, and you are thereby liable for enhanced punishment under s 16(3)(b) of the Public Order Act 2009.¹

You, on 12 June 2022, at or about 2.17 pm, at the walkway along Napier Road, Singapore, which is a public place, did behave in a disorderly manner, to wit, by shouting in a loud voice, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 20 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act 1906.

And further that you, before committing the said offence, were, on 03 February 2022, in State Court 10B, vide MAC-907326-2021 had been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, Chapter 184 and sentenced to 10 months imprisonment, which conviction and punishment had not been set aside, and you are therefore liable for enhanced punishment under the enhanced limb of Section 20 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act 1906.

And further, that you, from 25 May 2022 to 30 August 2022, were subject to a remission order made by the Commissioner of Prisons under Division 2 of Part VB of the Prisons Act 1933 which remission order is subject to the basic condition under section 50S(1) of the Prisons Act and while the remission order is in effect you, on 12 June 2022, committed the aforesaid offence and upon conviction and the imposition of a sentence reflected under s 50S(1)(b) of the Prisons Act, shall be deemed to have breached the basic condition of your remission order, and you are thereby liable to be punished under s 50T(1)(a) of the Prisons Act with an enhanced sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding the remaining duration of the remission order of 79 Days from 12 June 2022 to 30 August 2022 for that offence.²

Issues to be determined

The issues to be determined were: Whether the public assembly charge was made out (“Issue 1”); Whether the disorderly behaviour charge was made out (“Issue 2”); and Whether the Accused had a valid defence (“Issue 3”)?

Issue 1: Whether the public assembly charge was made out?

The principles governing the public assembly charge under s 16(2)(a) punishable under s 16(3)(b) of the Public Order Act 2009 (“POA”) are as follows: The offence is one of strict liability; It has two elements: The accused person has taken part in a public assembly; and No permit has been granted for that assembly.

As both elements were satisfied, the public assembly charge was made out.

Using placards prepared in advance, the Accused took part in a public assembly, by demonstrating opposition to the actions of various groups, including the US, Singapore, Chinese and Canadian governments, on 12 June 2022 at about 2.17 p.m. in front of the US Embassy.³ The area in front of the US Embassy is a public place, which members of the public have access as of right.⁴ The Accused’s actions were captured in the police officers’ video footage from the body-worn camera (“the BWC footage”);⁵ I accepted their eye-witness testimony.⁶

Prior to the assembly: On 12 June 2022 at 12.08p.m., the Accused had publicised his plan to protest outside the US Embassy by emailing Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (copied to the media and others), which stated that “I am writing to inform PM Lee of my protest outside the US Embassy on Jun 12, 2022 at 1pm. The purpose of this protest is to stand by my espionage claim against CIA agent David Roach…”.⁷ On 12 June 2022 at 1342 hours, the Accused also made a First Information Report, which stated “I am protesting for my espionage. Arrest me. I am protesting against Lee Hsien Loong”.⁸

No permit had been granted for the assembly.⁹

Issue 2: Whether the disorderly behaviour charge was made out?

I turn next to the disorderly behaviour charge under s 20 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act 1906 punishable under s 50T(1)(a) of the Prisons Act.

The disorderly behaviour charge was supported by the police officers’ eye-witness testimony¹⁰ and the BWC footage.¹¹

Taken together, the evidence showed that the Accused behaved in a disorderly manner by repeatedly shouting in a loud voice, despite being asked by police officers to calm down and stop what he was doing¹² on 12 June 2022 at or about 2.17 p.m. at the walkway along Napier Road, which is a public place.

The disorderly behaviour charge was made out.

Issue 3: Whether the Accused had a valid defence?

The Accused had no valid defence.

The Accused had previously applied for a permit to conduct a public assembly in 2016, which was rejected.¹³ It stands to reason that he knows how to apply for a permit. And he is aware that a permit is needed before a public assembly can be held. Yet, he had deliberately proceeded with the protest on 12 June 2022 without applying for a permit.¹⁴ Accordingly, the Accused did not avail himself of the defences available under s 17(1) of the POA, namely, that he did not know, suspect, or have any reason to suspect, that no permit had been granted for the assembly or procession or that no such permit is in force.

The Accused asserted that it was pointless to apply for a permit as the police are corrupt.¹⁵ I was unable to accept this argument. In this connection, I agreed with the learned District Judge’s views in Public Prosecutor v Yan Jun [2015] SGMC 24 at [36]:

“Essentially these contentions are a non-starter. The High Court has in a number of decisions made it clear that arguments such as an application for a licence or permit was wrongly rejected or that the authorities would not have granted a licence or permit do not provide a defence. If a person were to apply for a licence or permit and this was rejected, the recourse for persons unsatisfied with such exercise of discretionary administrative powers is judicial review (see Ng Chye Huay & anor v PP [2006] 1 SLR(R) 268 at [39]).”

Finally, the Accused alleged that police officers had arrived late to his protest, and that they should have come earlier to stop him from protesting.¹⁶ He also asserted that it was their fault (not his) that the protest took place.¹⁷ I agreed with the Prosecution that: These claims are irrelevant to the charges and misconceived.¹⁸ At least 4 police officers reacted fairly promptly and arrived at the scene after the Accused had lodged the First Information Report.¹⁹

Verdict

Taken as a whole, the Prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the Accused. He was convicted on both charges.

Sentencing Prescribed punishment

The prescribed...