Tee Kok Boon v Public Prosecutor

JudgeTay Yong Kwang J
Judgment Date01 September 2006
Neutral Citation[2006] SGHC 157
Docket NumberCriminal Revision No 8 of 2006
Date01 September 2006
Published date01 September 2006
Plaintiff CounselApplicant in person
Citation[2006] SGHC 157
Defendant CounselHay Hung Chun (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Subject MatterWhether one High Court can exercise revisionary or supervisory jurisdiction over another,Courts and Jurisdiction,Application to High Court for criminal revision in relation to decision of District Court upheld on appeal to High Court,Jurisdiction,Judicial review

1 September 2006

Tay Yong Kwang J:

1 The applicant first appeared unrepresented by counsel before me on 19 May 2006. He applied for an adjournment of his application because he said he had lodged a magistrate’s complaint in the Subordinate Courts which was to be heard on 26 May 2006 and which was supposedly related to the facts of this application. The Prosecution objected to the application for adjournment. I granted the adjournment and suggested that the applicant seek legal advice on whether the law permitted him to make the present application to the High Court.

2 At the resumed hearing on 25 August 2006, the applicant again appeared in person, having filed his written submissions pertaining to his application. He had nothing to add beyond the papers filed in this application and left the matter to the court to decide. I dismissed the application and now state my reasons for doing so.

3 The application for revision was not crafted in terms which were easy to comprehend. Essentially, it asked the High Court to find that the applicant had been wrongly convicted of an offence on the facts of the case (which I set out briefly below) and also contained various allegations concerning the competence of his counsel at the trial in the subordinate court and in the proceedings that followed therefrom.

4 On 1 December 2004, the applicant was convicted by District Judge Abdul Rahim bin Jalil after a trial on the following charge:

You, Tee Kok Boon, M/36 years, S1829404D, are charged that you, between 20 May 2002 and 22 May 2002, at the Small Claims Tribunal, 2 Havelock Road #05-00 Apollo Centre, Singapore, in a judicial proceeding before the referee Ms Vivienne Ong, to wit, a hearing in the Small Claims Tribunal concerning a claim by M/s O K Property Pte Ltd (Claim No. H/CY/002345/2002), did intentionally give false evidence before the said referee by intentionally stating to the said referee that you had witnessed one Heng Siew Ang sign a Letter of Undertaking dated 26 November 2001 in respect of the rental of an apartment located at Block 5 Kellock Road #06-02 Kellock Lodge, Singapore which you knew to be false as you did not witness the said Heng Siew Ang sign the Letter of Undertaking and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 193 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

5 Heng Siew Ang (“Heng”) was the owner of the apartment named in the charge. At the material time, the applicant was a housing agent with O K Property Pte Ltd (“O K Property”). He successfully secured a tenant for Heng. Subsequently, O K Property brought a claim against Heng in the Small Claims Tribunal over certain commission allegedly promised by Heng. The applicant was called as a witness for O K Property. He testified before the referee of the Small Claims Tribunal that he had witnessed Heng sign a letter of undertaking in which she promised to pay the said commission. Heng denied having signed the letter of undertaking. The referee ruled against Heng and ordered her to pay the commission.

6 Heng subsequently lodged a police report concerning the signature on the letter of undertaking. The police asked the applicant whether or not the letter of undertaking was signed in his presence. He replied that he believed the letter of undertaking was not signed in his presence. He was therefore prosecuted on the charge set out above. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo ten months in prison.

7 Following his conviction by the district judge, the applicant lodged a notice of appeal (Magistrate’s Appeal No 167 of 2005 (“MA 167/2005”)) against the conviction and sentence. He was released on bail pending the appeal, which came on for hearing in the High Court on 28 June 2005. In the meantime, the applicant filed Criminal Motion No 6 of 2005 (“CM 6/2005”), which was to be heard with MA 167/2005. This was his application to amend the petition of appeal to include an additional ground of “no case to answer” at the end of the Prosecution’s case in the District Court. On 16 June 2005, he filed Criminal Motion No 8 of 2005 (“CM 8/2005”) for leave to adduce fresh evidence.

8 On 28 June 2005, the applicant applied for leave to withdraw CM 6/2005 and that was granted. The High Court dismissed CM 8/2005 as well as MA 167/2005.

9 Having served his sentence, on 9 March 2006, the applicant filed Criminal Motion No 5 of 2006 to ask the Court of Appeal for an extension of time to refer certain questions of law of public interest pursuant to s 60 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) (“SCJA”). This was heard and dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 11 April 2006.

10 On 30 March 2006, the applicant filed the present application for criminal revision. The grounds relied on in the present application were those raised before the High Court in MA 167/2005. As indicated earlier, he also made allegations about his former counsel’s conduct and competence in the course of all the proceedings.

11 The High Court has powers of revision over...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Marplan Pte Ltd v AG
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 16 April 2013
    ...Council [2011] SGHC 131 (folld) Poh Soon Kiat v Hotel Ramada of Nevada [1999] 2 SLR (R) 756; [1999] 4 SLR 391 (refd) Tee Kok Boon v PP [2006] 4 SLR (R) 398; [2006] 4 SLR 398 (refd) R v Peterborough Magistrates' Court, ex parte Dowler [1997] QB 911 (refd) R v Wandsworth Justices, exparte Rea......
  • Tjong Mark Edward v PP
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 6 April 2015
    ...Sairi bin Sulaiman v PP [1995] 2 SLR (R) 794; [1995] 3 SLR 242 (refd) Tang See Meng v PP [2001] SGDC 161 (refd) Tee Kok Boon v PP [2006] 4 SLR (R) 398; [2006] 4 SLR 398 (folld) Tey Tsun Hang v PP [2014] 2 SLR 1189 (refd) Took Leng How v PP [2006] 2 SLR (R) 70; [2006] 2 SLR 70 (refd) Yuen Ch......
  • Attorney-General v Tee Kok Boon
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 28 December 2007
    ...Tay Yong Kwang on 19 March 2006. At Tee’s request, it was adjourned to 25 August 2006 when it was then dismissed (see Tee Kok Boon v PP [2006] 4 SLR 398). The judge said that although the High Court has revisionary powers over all subordinate courts, it does not have such a power over a dec......
  • Marplan Private Limited v Attorney-General
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 16 April 2013
    ...alone. [emphasis added in italics and bold italics] Quoting Bright Impex (at [14]) with approval in Tee Kok Boon v Public Prosecutor [2006] 4 SLR(R) 398 (also in the context of criminal revision), Tay Yong Kwang J further elaborated (at [15]): I agree entirely with the above statement which......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Administrative and Constitutional Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2006, December 2006
    • 1 December 2006
    ...General principles: Supervisory jurisdiction — over whom? 1.3 The nature of supervisory jurisdiction was affirmed in Tee Kok Boon v PP[2006] 4 SLR 398 (‘Tee Kok Boon’). As observed by G P Selvam JC (as he then was) in Haron bin Mundir v Singapore Amateur Athletic Association[1992] 1 SLR 18 ......
  • Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2006, December 2006
    • 1 December 2006
    ...the Rules of Court. 12.27 In another case touching on the revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court, the applicant in Tee Kok Boon v PP[2006] 4 SLR 398 filed an application for criminal revision asking the High Court to find that he had been wrongly convicted by the District Court after hi......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT