Yen Ching Yan v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 13 July 1998
• Neutral Citation: [1998] SGHC 235
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 83 of 1998
• Date: 13 July 1998
• Year: 1998
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: JB Jeyaretnam (JB Jeyaretnam & Co)
• Citation: [1998] SGHC 235
• Defendant Counsel: Mathavan Devadas (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether High Court could revise order of discharge not amounting to acquittal so as to substitute order of acquittal,Courts and Jurisdiction,Whether High Court limited to doing only that which lower court entitled to in exercise of its appellate criminal jurisdiction,Appeal,Whether district judge had power to grant acquittal,Jurisdiction,District judge granted accused discharge not amounting to acquittal,Prosecution withdrew charge falling within jurisdiction of higher court,Discharge not amounting to acquittal,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,High Court's appellate jurisdiction

Judgment:

YONG PUNG HOW CJ

This was an appeal against the district judge`s order that the appellant be given a discharge not amounting to an acquittal in respect of the following capital charge (PIC No 224/97):

You, Yen Ching Yan, M/29 yrs

NRIC No: S 6833282-F

are charged that you, between 29 September 1997 at about 4.07pm and 6 October 1997 at about 1am, in room 1729 at New Park Hotel, Serangoon Road, Singapore, did traffic in a controlled drug specified in Class `A` of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185), to wit, by having in your possession for the purpose of trafficking, 2 plastic packets and 24 plastic sachets containing approximately 1072.02g of diamorphine at the aforesaid place without any authorisation under the said Act or the Regulations made thereunder and you have thereby committed an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) and punishable under s 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185).

2.Counsel for the appellant contended that having regard to the charge and the circumstances that have transpired, it would be unjust to allow the charge to hang over the appellant indefinitely. He therefore appealed for an order that the appellant be acquitted of the charge. I dismissed the appeal without hearing the DPP for the reasons which follow.

3. The facts

The appellant was arrested on 6 October 1997. Two days later, the above-mentioned charge was preferred against him in Court 26. On 15 October 1997, the court was informed by Mr Rahman Salleh that he was acting for the appellant. Subsequently, the prosecution applied on a few occasions for time pending the report from the Department of Scientific Services on the analysis of the drugs. On 10 December 1997, the appellant`s present counsel informed the court of the change of counsel. The prosecution stated that a pre-trial conference in the High Court would be held on 6 January 1998 and in view of this, the next mention was fixed on 21 January 1998. On that day, the court was informed that the next pre- trial conference was on 24 February 1998 and that investigations were still incomplete. The next mention was fixed on 11 March 1998 but was subsequently brought forward at the request of the appellant`s counsel to 3 March 1998. It was on that day that the prosecution preferred a fresh charge of consumption of methylamphetamine (commonly known as ICE) against the appellant and applied for him to be given a discharge not amounting to an acquittal with regard to the capital charge. The appellant`s counsel objected and the matter was adjourned for parties to prepare arguments. On 10 March 1998, after hearing arguments from both sides, the district judge granted the prosecution`s application and ordered that the appellant be given a discharge not amounting to an acquittal in respect of the capital charge.

4. The decision below

Two questions were in issue: whether the court, as a mentions court, had the power to order an acquittal in respect of the charge and whether this was a proper case to do so. The district judge answered both questions in the negative.

5.First, he felt that the court had no power to grant an acquittal in respect of the capital charge. For charges in district arrest cases or magistrate arrest cases, the court had the power, under s 184(2)...