Wu Tze Kok v Public Prosecutor

JurisdictionSingapore
Judgment Date10 October 2001
Date10 October 2001
Docket NumberMagistrate's Appeal No 166 of 2001
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Wu Tze Kok
Plaintiff
and
Public Prosecutor
Defendant

[2001] SGHC 302

Yong Pung How CJ

Magistrate's Appeal No 166 of 2001

High Court

Courts and Jurisdiction–Jurisdiction–Appellate–High Court–Default imprisonment–Section 224 (b) (iv) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)–Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Sentencing–Default imprisonment–Rationale of default imprisonment–When discretion to impose default imprisonment could be exercised–Section 224 (b) (iv) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)

The appellant (“Wu”) failed to attend court despite being ordered to do so, and was required to show cause. As Wu had no valid reasons for his failure, a show cause penalty, with imprisonment in default, was imposed. Wu promptly paid the penalty in full.

Wu appealed, and requested the court to refund him the penalty paid, and allow him to serve the default sentence of imprisonment instead.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) Section 19 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) set out the appellate criminal jurisdiction of the High Court which was circumscribed, in the present case, by s 224 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed), which deals with the power of the court to impose a sentence of default imprisonment: at [7] and [8].

(2) The sentence of default imprisonment was meant to prevent the evasion of fines, and not to punish those genuinely unable to pay. This was evident from s 224 (e), which stated that the sentence of default imprisonment ceased to be effective and terminated the moment the fine was paid, and s 224 (f)which essentially relieved an individual of his remaining term of default imprisonment when he was able to pay the proportionate amount of fine outstanding: at [10].

(3) The court was not legally empowered to grant Wu's request. Section 224 (b) (iv) clearly showed that the court's discretion to impose a term of default imprisonment in lieu of paying the fine imposed was only available before the fine had been paid in full. Further, allowing Wu's request went against the object of default imprisonment, as a person who had already paid the fine in full could not be said to be genuinely unable to pay: at [6], [10] and [11].

Low Meng Chay v PP [1993] 1 SLR (R) 46; [1993] 1 SLR 569 (folld)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 224 (b) (iv) (consd);ss 224 (e), 224 (f)

Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 1997 Rev Ed) s 133 (6)

Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) s 19...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Public Prosecutor v Chee Kok Yeong
    • Singapore
    • Magistrates' Court (Singapore)
    • 12 March 2003
    ...from evading the fines, not to punish those who genuinely cannot pay: also see Low Meng Chay v PP [1993] 1 SLR 569, Wu Tze Kok v PP [2001] 4 SLR 645. The total default sentence in Chia Kah Boon would have been a crushing 203 months for a total fine of $4.6 million if the default sentences w......
  • Sim Chye Men v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • Magistrates' Court (Singapore)
    • 19 September 2002
    ...from evading the fines, not to punish those who genuinely cannot pay: also see Low Meng Chay v PP [1993] 1 SLR 569, Wu Tze Kok v PP [2001] 4 SLR 645. Default sentences must however still be sufficient to deter the offender from evading payment of the fines, and be adequate punishment for no......
  • Public Prosecutor v Yan Jun
    • Singapore
    • Magistrates' Court (Singapore)
    • 2 September 2022
    ...of the payment of funds imposed: Low Meng Chay v Public Prosecutor [1993] 1 SLR(R) 46 at [13] and Wu Tze Kok v Public Prosecutor [2001] 3 SLR(R) 350 at [10] (Tan Yock Lin and S. Chandra Mohan, Criminal Procedure (LexisNexis: 2019; Binder 3, Chapter XVII: Sentencing) at [2154]). The Accused’......
  • Lean Cheong Keng v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 30 October 2002
    ...As default sentences are meant to prevent offenders from evading the fines, (see Low Meng Chay v PP [1993] 1 SLR 569 and Wu Tze Kok v PP [2001] 4 SLR 645), I also ordered all the default sentences to run consecutively. In the event that the Accused does not pay the fine of $1 million, he wo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2001, December 2001
    • 1 December 2001
    ...was accordingly dismissed. Refunding a fine and imposing a default term of imprisonment in substitution 11.15 In Wu Tze Kok v PP[2001] 4 SLR 645, the appellant was charged in the subordinate court for two traffic offences. As the appellant failed to turn up in court when he was mandated to ......

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