Tee Kok Boon v Public Prosecutor

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeChoo Han Teck J
Judgment Date11 April 2006
Neutral Citation[2006] SGCA 16
Plaintiff CounselAppellant in person
Published date13 April 2006
CourtCourt of Appeal (Singapore)
Defendant CounselHay Hung Chun (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
Subject MatterCriminal Procedure and Sentencing,Criminal references,Applicant seeking extension of time to apply for leave of High Court to refer questions of law of public interest to Court of Appeal,Whether issues raised questions of law of public interest,Whether any good and compellable reasons why application for leave not filed in time,Sections 60(1), 60(2) Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed)

11 April 2006

Choo Han Teck J (delivering the judgment of the Court):

1 This was an application made by the applicant in person. He had been convicted in the District Court for an offence of giving false evidence and was sentenced on 1 December 2004 to ten months’ imprisonment. He appealed to the High Court in Magistrate’s Appeal No 167 of 2004, but his appeal was dismissed by Yong Pung How CJ on 28 June 2005. No grounds were issued in respect of that decision by the High Court. There is no further appeal from the High Court in such cases. However, under the conditions set out in s 60 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed), questions of law of public interest may be referred to the Court of Appeal for its decision. Section 60 provides as follows:

(1) When a criminal matter has been determined by the High Court in the exercise of its appellate or revisionary jurisdiction, the Judge may on the application of any party, and shall on the application of the Public Prosecutor, reserve for the decision of the Court of Appeal any question of law of public interest which has arisen in the matter and the determination of which by the Judge has affected the case.

(2) An application under subsection (1) shall be made within one month or such longer time as the Court of Appeal may permit of the determination of the matter to which it relates and in the case of an application by the Public Prosecutor shall be made by him or with his written consent.

(3) When a question has been reserved under subsection (1), the Judge who has reserved the question may make such orders as he may see fit for the arrest, custody or release on bail of any party in the case.

(4) The Court of Appeal shall hear and determine the question reserved under subsection (1) and may make such orders as the High Court might have made as the Court of Appeal may consider just for the disposal of the case.

(5) For the purposes of this section, any question of law which the Public Prosecutor applies to be reserved or regarding which there is a conflict of judicial authority shall be deemed to be a question of public interest.

2 By virtue of sub-s (2) the applicant had to apply for leave from the High Court for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal under sub-s (1) within a month from the date of the High Court’s decision. In the present case, that would require the applicant to make his application by 28 July 2005. The application was not made within that time and, hence, the applicant had to apply to this court for an extension of time to apply to the High Court. This was what, in substance, the applicant sought to obtain before us in this motion filed on 9 March 2006. In the meantime, the applicant proceeded to serve his sentence of imprisonment.

3 The applicant filed an affidavit in support of this present application before us. He explained that he failed to apply for leave under s 60(1) in time because he had relied on his solicitor to do so. He deposed that his solicitor declined to do any more work for him after he (the applicant) declined to pay his solicitor’s fees.

4 Nonetheless, on 26 July 2005 the solicitor wrote to the applicant in prison and advised him that in his view, an application under s 60(1) was not likely to succeed. The applicant appeared to have rejected this advice. In the solicitor’s letter of 26 July 2005 to the applicant, the solicitor mentioned that the papers, including the motion for leave to refer under s 60, had been handed over for the applicant to make the application through the prison authority.

5 The applicant was released from prison under the Home...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Bachoo Mohan Singh v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 4 December 2009
    ...270 (distd) Regina v Grantham [1969] 2 QB 574 (distd) Salwant Singh v PP [2005] 1 SLR (R) 36; [2005] 1 SLR 36 (refd) Tee Kok Boon v PP [2006] SGCA 16 (refd) Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law Society of Singapore [1988] 1 SLR (R) 455; [1988] SLR 510 (refd) Wong Hong Toy v PP [1985–1986] SLR (R) 371......
  • Attorney-General v Tee Kok Boon
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 28 December 2007
    ...such longer time as the Court of Appeal might permit. On 27 March 2007, the Court of Appeal dismissed this application. Its judgment is [2006] SGCA 16. I need set out only paragraphs 6 to 9 of that 6 It appeared that the applicant was aware that to bring an application under s 60(1) he had ......
  • Attorney-General v Tee Kok Boon
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 28 December 2007
    ...such longer time as the Court of Appeal might permit. On 27 March 2007, the Court of Appeal dismissed this application. Its judgment is [2006] SGCA 16. I need set out only paragraphs 6 to 9 of that 6 It appeared that the applicant was aware that to bring an application under s 60(1) he had ......

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