Yap Keng Ho v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 08 November 2006
• Neutral Citation: [2006] SGHC 201
• Docket Number: Criminal Motion No 29 of 2006
• Date: 08 November 2006
• Year: 2006
• Published date: 09 November 2006
• Plaintiff Counsel: Applicant in person
• Citation: [2006] SGHC 201
• Defendant Counsel: Jennifer Marie and Han Ming Kuang (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Trial 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 him in court. The DPP pointed out that Mr Ravi had been suspended from practising as an advocate and solicitor the previous Friday. As the proceedings before me did not include an investigation into Mr Ravi’s conduct or role in court, I accepted the applicant’s statement that Mr Ravi was not assisting him (the applicant) as counsel, and that Mr Ravi’s role was limited to helping him record notes of the proceedings. In his oral argument, the applicant submitted that the charges against him and the other accused persons were politically motivated. He asserted the claim, though not so stated on oath in his affidavit, that the trial judge had guided the witness in his testimony, implying that the judge was biased against the accused persons. He also submitted that the sketch plan produced by PW3 was “flawed”. Finally, he argued that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were untruthful. These were the only arguments that pertained to the application brought by way of this criminal motion. The applicant spent a long time making a speech of a political nature. Interspersed in his rhetoric were pleas for justice and adherence to the rule of law.

5 “Justice” and “the rule of law” are commonly espoused values and most people have a superficial idea of what they connote. But these are also complex subjects and learned jurists have struggled at times to determine their application in more difficult situations. Without the assistance of counsel, the applicant was unable to articulate the relevance of these grand ideals to the case at hand. However, from what had been stated in his...