Vignes s/o Mourthi v Public Prosecutor (No 2)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 18 September 2003
• Date: 18 September 2003
• Docket Number: Criminal Motion No 16 of 2003
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Vignes s/o Mourthi

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[2003] SGHC 212

Woo Bih Li J

Criminal Motion No 16 of 2003

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–High Court–Trial before High Court–Alleged miscarriage of justice–Application for leave to order re-trial and stay of death sentence pending hearing of application–Whether High Court has jurisdiction to grant leave

The applicant sought an order from the High Court that leave be granted to order a re-trial and that the sentence of death passed on him be stayed pending the hearing of the application for re-trial. The grounds for his application were that there was a possible miscarriage of justice arising from two defects in his trial before the High Court. First, it was alleged that the question of the admissibility of documentary evidence not produced at the Preliminary Inquiry but produced for the first time at the High Court trial had not been raised by the applicant's counsel then. Second, it was contended that the applicant had been denied his constitutional right under Art 9 (3) of the Constitution of Singapore as the trial High Court judge did not grant an adjournment of the trial to enable the applicant to appoint counsel of his own choice. Further, it was averred that these two points had not been raised in the subsequent appeal.

Held, dismissing the motion:

(1) There had been a full trial before the High Court and it was not for a different High Court judge to order the trial High Court judge to re-try the matter, especially when the applicant's appeal to the Court of Appeal had been dismissed. The High Court also did not have jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution pending the hearing of an application for a re-trial: at [7] and [18].

(2) From a perusal of the relevant case law and in these circumstances, it was arguable that the Court of Appeal would have jurisdiction to order a re-trial and to order a stay of execution pending the hearing of an application for a re-trial. Even if the Court of Appeal had such jurisdiction, the applicant would still have to show the Court of Appeal why there should be a re-trial. If the Court of Appeal did not have jurisdiction, the applicant would have to petition to the President for such a stay: at [16] and [17].

Abdullah bin A Rahman v PP [1994] 2 SLR (R) 1017; [1994] 3 SLR 129 (refd)

Jabar bin Kadermastan v PP [1995] 1 SLR (R) 326; [1995] 1 SLR 617 (refd)

Lim Choon Chye v PP [1994] 2 SLR (R) 1024; [1994] 3 SLR 135 (refd)

M Ravi (M Ravi & Co) for the applicant

Bala Reddy and Francis Ng (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the respondent.

Woo Bih Li J

1 This was an application by Vignes s/o Mourthi for an order “that leave be granted to the applicant to order that there be a re-trial of the applicant and that the sentence of death passed on him be stayed pending the re-trial”.

2 The application was supported by an affidavit by Vignes' counsel, Mr M...