Stanislaus Krofan v Public Prosecutor

• Judgment Date: 05 October 1966
• Date: 05 October 1966
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No Y4 of 1966
• Court: Federal Court (Singapore)

Singapore Federal Court.

(Wee Chong Jin C. J., Tan Ah Tah F. J. and Ambrose J.)

Stanislaus Krofan and Another

and

Public Prosecutor

War and neutrality — War in general — Prisoners of war — Hague Regulations respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land — Spies — Whether member of armed forces operating out of uniform a spy — Whether spies treated as prisoners of war — Whether member of the armed forces in disguise acting as saboteur spy — Whether such member of armed forces to be treated as a prisoner of war — Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War, 1949 — Whether such member a prisoner of war within the meaning of Article 4 of the Geneva Convention — The Law of Singapore

Summary: The facts:—On 14 April 1965 Indonesia and Malaysia were in ‘armed conflict’ within the meaning of the expression in the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War 1949. Singapore was then a part of Malaysia. On the evening of that date the appellants in civilian clothing came into Singapore from Indonesia with explosives. When they were caught the appellants claimed that they were members of the Indonesian armed forces and had been ordered by their superiors to set off the explosives in Singapore. On 9 August 1965 Singapore separated from Malaysia. At the trial of the appellants in Singapore after the separation the question arose whether the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War 1949, was applicable to the appellants. The prosecution contended that the Convention did not apply because it was not part of the municipal law of Singapore.

Held:—Assuming that the Convention was applicable to Singapore it did not help the appellants as they were not prisoners of war within the meaning of Article 4 of the Convention. A member of the armed forces who divests himself of his uniform for the purpose of spying or of sabotage forfeits his right on capture to be treated as a prisoner of war.

The following is the text of the judgment of the Court, delivered by Wee Chong Jin, C. J.:

The appellants were tried, convicted and sentenced by the High Court in Singapore on the following charge:—

We propose to set out only those facts which are material for determining the questions raised in this appeal. The appellants on the evening of 14th April 1965 came into Singapore from one of the nearby Indonesian islands in a boat which carried no lights. They came ashore carrying with them explosives which they claimed they had been ordered by their superiors to explode in Singapore. They claimed they were members of the armed forces of Indonesia though at the time of their entry into Singapore they were wearing civilian clothing. They were apprehended without offering any resistance immediately after they set foot on Singapore soil with the explosives in their physical possession. At the material date there was a state of ‘confrontation’ between Indonesia and Malaysia, of which Singapore was a member State. For the purposes of this appeal it is not disputed that as a result of this state of confrontation, Indonesia and Malaysia were in ‘armed conflict’ within the meaning of that expression in the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1949 Geneva Prisoners of War Convention’).

When the trial commenced before Kulasekaram J. on 17th September 1965, Singapore was no longer a member State of Malaysia, having been separated from Malaysia on 9th August 1965. The appellants were represented by counsel at the trial who took a preliminary point that as the appellants claimed to be ‘prisoners of war, some competent body has to decide whether they are or not’; ‘that so far no competent body has given any verdict as to the status whether they are prisoners of war or not’ and that ‘if they are then this court cannot try them.’ On this point counsel for the prosecution replied to the effect that if the appellants were claiming to be protected prisoners of war within the meaning of the 1949 Geneva...