Yap Keng Ho v Public Prosecutor

CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
JudgeChoo Han Teck J
Judgment Date08 November 2006
Neutral Citation[2006] SGHC 201
Citation[2006] SGHC 201
Defendant CounselJennifer Marie and Han Ming Kuang (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
Plaintiff CounselApplicant in person
Published date09 November 2006
Docket NumberCriminal Motion No 29 of 2006
Date08 November 2006
Subject MatterTrial judge refusing to "abort" trial on account of witness' presence in court,Revision of proceedings,Applicant filing criminal motion in High Court for order of "mistrial" even though trial not concluded,Whether application premature,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Witness remaining in court before testifying while other witnesses giving evidence at applicant's criminal trial,When witness may remain in court before testimony given

8 November 2006

Choo Han Teck J:

1 The applicant was charged with two others (collectively referred to as “the accused persons”) under s 19(1)(a) of the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act, (Cap 257, 2001 Rev Ed) for carrying out public entertainment without a licence. The trial commenced on 25 October 2006 before a District Court judge. On 27 October 2006, the applicant filed this criminal motion for an order declaring a “mistrial”. The application also made three other claims, namely, that: (a) there had been a violation of Arts 9 (1)–9(3), 12 and 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1999 Rev Ed) (“the Constitution”); (b) the Attorney-General had misled the court and violated Arts 9 and 12 of the Constitution; and (c) the “State Council” should be directed to advise the President of Singapore to “convene a Constitutional Court under Article 100 of the Constitution”.

2 The factual basis of this application arose from the presence of the investigating officer for the case, one Assistant Superintendent of Police Jeremy Koh (“the investigating officer”), in court during the recording of the oral evidence of three witnesses. The first witness (“PW1”) gave evidence of the receipt of the first information report, the second (“PW2”) produced three photographs taken at the scene, and the third (“PW3”) produced a sketch plan of the scene. The accused persons applied to the trial judge to “abort” the trial on account of the investigating officer’s presence in court. The application was dismissed on 27 October 2006 and, consequently, the applicant filed this application. The trial was thus adjourned pending the hearing of this application. The application came up for hearing before me on 30 October 2006.

3 The main ground for making this application was set out in the applicant’s affidavit filed on 30 October 2006. In it, the applicant complained that the investigating officer had been “sitting in the court from the outset of the trial and throughout the entire hearing on 25 October 2006”. He also complained that the deputy public prosecutor (“the DPP”) had misled the court by not obtaining the court’s approval for the investigating officer to sit in during the trial. He deposed that the investigating officer “was passing up and down the court in arranging the witnesses in order to assist the DPP”. The applicant also alleged that PW3’s presence in court whilst the investigating officer was on the stand was an irregularity.

4 The applicant was not represented before me although his previous counsel, one Mr M Ravi, appeared to assist...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Ng Chye Huey and another v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 24 d3 Janeiro d3 2007
    ...v PP [2000] 2 SLR (R) 351; [2000] 3 SLR 168 (refd) Ting Sie Huong v State Attorney-General [1985] 1 MLJ 431 (refd) Yap Keng Ho v PP [2007] 1 SLR (R) 259; [2007] 1 SLR 259 (refd) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68,1985 Rev Ed)ss 241, 266 Criminal Procedure Code1900 (Ord 21 of 1900)s 312 Miscell......
  • Azman Bin Jamaludin v PP
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 18 d5 Novembro d5 2011
    ...33 (refd) Sim Cheng Hui v PP [1998] 1 SLR (R) 670; [1998] 2 SLR 302 (refd) Yap Fook Yew v PP [1949] MLJ Supp 3 (refd) Yap Keng Ho v PP [2007] 1 SLR (R) 259; [2007] 1 SLR 259 (refd) Zahira Habibulla HSheikh v State of Gujarat (2004) 4 SCC 158 (folld) Zainal bin Kuning v Chan Sin Mian Michael......
  • Amarjeet Singh v PP
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 30 d2 Março d2 2021
    ...[2020] 1 SLR 486 (refd) Ramalingam Ravinthran v AG [2012] 2 SLR 49 (distd) Xu Yuanchen v PP [2021] SGHC 64 (folld) Yap Keng Ho v PP [2007] 1 SLR(R) 259; [2007] 1 SLR 259 (refd) Yong Vui Kong v PP [2012] 2 SLR 872 (distd) Legislation referred to Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (198......
  • Xu Yuanchen v PP
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 18 d4 Março d4 2021
    ...PP v Ng Beng Siang [2003] 4 SLR(R) 609; [2003] 4 SLR 609 (refd) Rajendar Prasad Rai v PP [2017] 4 SLR 333 (refd) Yap Keng Ho v PP [2007] 1 SLR(R) 259; [2007] 1 SLR 259 (refd) Legislation referred to Computer Misuse Act (Cap 50A, 2007 Rev Ed) s 3(1) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Administrative and Constitutional Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review Nbr. 2006, December 2006
    • 1 d5 Dezembro d5 2006
    ...judicial statements in relation to the content of the rule of law were made in relation to the conduct of a trial. In Yap Keng Ho v PP[2007] 1 SLR 259 (‘Yap’), the applicant was charged with two others before a District Court for conducting public entertainment without a licence, contrary t......

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