Public Prosecutor v Yong Heng Yew
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Yong Pung How CJ |
| Judgment Date | 11 September 1996 |
| Neutral Citation | [1996] SGHC 199 |
| Date | 11 September 1996 |
| Subject Matter | Whether prosecution required to show that respondent intended to walk away without properly disposing of cigarette butt,Public health,s 18(1)(a) Environmental Public Health Act (Cap 95),Respondent threw cigarette butt onto ground in public place and charged with offence of littering,Criminal Law,Offences,Littering |
| Docket Number | Magistrate's Appeal No 68 of 1996 |
| Published date | 19 September 2003 |
| Defendant Counsel | Respondent in person |
| Court | High Court (Singapore) |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Lau Wing Yum (Deputy Public Prosecutor) |
The respondent was tried in the district court on the following charge:
You, Yong Heng Yew (NRIC No. 168670/H) of Blk 38 Telok Blangah Rise #04-333, Singapore 090038, are charged that you on 14 November 1995 at about 7.20pm at Pearl Centre, Eu Tong Sen Street, did throw a cigarette butt onto the floor and you have thereby contravened s 18(1)(a) of the Environmental Public Health Act (Cap 95), and committed an offence punishable under s 21(1) of the said Act.
After his defence was called, the respondent ~ who had acted in person ~ was acquitted and discharged by the district judge. An appeal was brought by the Public Prosecutor against the order of acquittal and discharge. I allowed the appeal after hearing both the DPP and the respondent himself. The grounds for my decision are now set out below.
The undisputed facts of the case were as follows. On 14 November 1995, two officers from the Ministry of the Environment ~ PW1 and PW2 ~ observed the respondent smoking a cigarette at Pearl Centre, Eu Tong Sen Street. After he had finished smoking, he threw the cigarette butt on the floor and extinguished it underfoot. He was subsequently accosted by PW2 who identified himself as an inspector from the Ministry of the Environment.
The main area of factual dispute during the trial concerned the length of time which elapsed between the respondent throwing down his cigarette butt and his being accosted by PW2. Both PW1 and PW2 testified that the time lapse in question was ten minutes. The respondent, on the other hand, insisted that it was only Othirty seconds or one minute`. The district judge preferred the respondent`s version of events. He pointed out that both PW1 and PW2 had testified that they began observing the respondent at 7.10pm; that they observed him for ten minutes before he threw down his cigarette butt; and that they waited another ten minutes before PW2 approached him. At the same time, however, it was generally agreed that the respondent was Obooked` by PW2 at 7.20pm. Clearly, there was an insufficient time lapse for PW1 and PW2 to have observed the respondent for ten minutes before he threw away his cigarette and then for another ten minutes after he had done so. The district judge found, therefore, that
[T]he prosecution witnesses had misjudged the time they observed [the respondent]. I accept the version of [the respondent] that he was approached about one minute after he had stepped on the cigarette butt É
Having made the above finding, the district judge went on to agree with the respondent that the prosecution had failed to show any intention on his part to Owalk away without properly disposing of the cigarette butt`. Such an intention, in the district judge`s view, was an essential element of the offence of littering created by s 18(1)(a) of the Environmental Public Health Act (the Act). Section 18, he opined, was drafted in very wide terms; and Parliament could not have intended persons to be punished pursuant to such a wide-ranging provision unless a guilty intent were shown in addition to the physical act of throwing refuse. In this respect, reliance was placed by the district judge on Lord Pearce`s judgment in Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 132, in which his Lordship stated: Oone must remember that normally mens rea is still an ingredient of any offence`.
The present appeal turned, therefore, on the construction of s 18(1)(a) of the Act: specifically,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Public Prosecutor v Lim Niah Liang
...apt to be considered “serious” littering: at [26].] Lim Chor Pee, Re [1990] 2 SLR (R) 117; [1990] SLR 809 (refd) PP v Yong Heng Yew [1996] 3 SLR (R) 22; [1996] 3 SLR 566 (folld) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 199 (4) Environmental Public Health Act (Cap 95, 1988 Rev Ed) ss ......
-
Tan Meng Lian and Public Prosecutor
...imposed on the offence of littering under Section 18(1)(a) of the Environmental Public Health Act in Public Prosecutor v Yong Heng Yew [1996] 3 SLR 566. It was held that the provision was clearly concerned with an issue of social concern, namely, the preservation of the cleanliness and hygi......
-
Public Prosecutor v Chua Hock Soon James, Harriet International Network Pte Ltd & Harriet Education Group Pte Ltd
...Appeal No. 198 of 1997, unreported) and Tan Meng Lian v Public Prosecutor [2001] SGDC 233). In Public Prosecutor v Yong Heng Yew [1996] 3 SLR 566, the offence of littering under Section 18(1)(a) of the same Act was held to require the prosecution only to prove, for the mens rea element, an ......
-
Public Prosecutor v Ong Jun Yong
...of provocation under s 300, Exception 1 of the Penal Code. For the remaining two cases, namely, Public Prosecutor v Yong Heng Yew [1996] 3 SLR(R) 22 (“Yong Heng Yew”) at [10]; [14] and Bander Yahya A Alzahrani v Public Prosecutor [2018] 3 SLR 92 at [27], the High Court had referred to the c......
-
REQUIREMENT OF FAULT IN STRICT LIABILITY
...2 SLR 69, 71. 53 LH Leigh, Strict and Vicarious Liability (1982) p 1; Naranjan Singh v PP[1993] 1 CLAS News 237; PP v Yong Heng Yew[1996] 3 SLR 566, 569; Michael Hor, supra, note 8, at 315. 54 Even where liability is “strict”, it is commonly acknowledged that the general defences such as au......
-
Criminal Law
...offences are those where the defendant is only allowed those defences which affect actus reus such as automatism (eg, PP v Yong Heng Yew[1996] 3 SLR 566 at 568) and not defences such as unsoundness of mind which relate to mens rea. However, it has been suggested that offences of absolute li......
-
ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMINAL LAW IN SINGAPORE1
...50 [1995] 3 SLR 123. 51 [1992] 1 SLR 9. 52 Cap. 95, Rg 15. 53 For the period November 1992 to April 1997. 54 [1997] 1 SLR 534. 55 [1996] 3 SLR 566. 56 These can be found in the First Schedule to the Regulations. Different levels are prescribed for different times of the day. Between 7am to ......