Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lai Kew Chai J
• Judgment Date: 24 September 1992
• Neutral Citation: [1992] SGHC 251
• Docket Number: Criminal Motion No 11 of 1991, Magistrate's Appeal No 469 of 1985 and Bill of Costs
• Date: 24 September 1992
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1992
• Plaintiff Counsel: P Suppiah (P Suppiah & Co)for the appellant
• Citation: [1992] SGHC 251
• Defendant Counsel: Lucy Hangchi (State Counsel)for the respondents
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: ss 5 & 262(1) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Review of taxation of costs of criminal case,Whether English law applicable,Scope of court's discretion to award costs,Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 SI 198 No 1335 [UK],Costs

This was a criminal motion of the appellant for an order that the taxation of the costs in this criminal case be reviewed and that the appellant`s objections, which constituted nine items of objections, to the getting-up item fixed by the deputy registrar of the High Court at $16,000 be allowed. At the conclusion of the hearing of the criminal motion, I ruled that the appellant had no right to apply to me sitting as a High Court judge to review the taxation on the ground that there is no statutory provision, unlike those applicable to a civil case, which permitted such a review. In any event, I also ruled that if I had the jurisdiction to do so, I would affirm the sum of $16,000 which was allowed by the deputy registrar as the getting-up item. I further ordered the appellant to pay to the respondent the full costs taxed by the deputy registrar. In exercise of my discretion, I did not make any order as to the costs of and in connection with the criminal motion.

The background

The appellant was tried and convicted of three charges under s 96 of the Income Tax Act (Cap 134). The three-day trial in the district court took place towards the end of 1985. The appellant was represented by Mr Gerald Godfrey QC assisted by Mr Mak Kok Weng and Mr Suppiah. In the event, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to pay a total fine of $12,000 in addition to a penalty of $26,642.28. He appealed to the High Court.

On 28 May 1990, the appeal came up before me for hearing. But the appellant withdrew his appeal. Counsel for the respondent invited me to exercise my powers under s 262(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68)(`the CPC`) and order such costs against the appellant as the High Court shall think fit. Section 262(1) of the CPC provides: `The High Court shall have full power in all proceedings under Part VII to award such costs to be paid by or to the parties thereto as the Court thinks fit.`

There are two subsections to the section. They are irrelevant for present purposes. It was also common ground that that appeal was a proceeding within and governed by Pt VII of the CPC. When considering the application of counsel for the respondent, I did not have, as was patently obvious, any material before me in relation to the work done by counsel for the respondent nor of the disbursements (including leading counsel`s costs) which had been incurred by the respondent. As I had the power `to award such costs ... as the Court thinks fit`, I decided that the...