Yeo Hwee Hua and Others v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 08 June 1995
• Neutral Citation: [1995] SGHC 143
• Docket Number: Criminal Motion No 4 of 1995
• Date: 08 June 1995
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1995
• Plaintiff Counsel: SK Kumar (SK Kumar & Associates)
• Citation: [1995] SGHC 143
• Defendant Counsel: Ong Hian Sun (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Whether application should be allowed,Court of appeal,Reference to Court of Appeal,Relevant principles,Appeal,s 60 Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322),Questions of law and public interest,Reference on questions of law and public interest,Courts and Jurisdiction

The first and second appellants were convicted of dishonestly receiving stolen property under s 411 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) and the third appellant was convicted of assisting in the disposal of such property under s 414 of the Penal Code. On appeal to the High Court, I dismissed the appeals of the three appellants on 17 January 1995.

Counsel for the appellants subsequently brought this motion pursuant to s 60 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) (the SCJA) and applied for an order that the following questions which, he claimed, were questions of law of public interest which had arisen in the course of the appeal and the determination of which had affected the event of the appeal, be reserved for the decision of the Court of Appeal:

(1) whether in respect of the first and second appellants, the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that they had `reason to believe`, as defined in the Penal Code, that goods were stolen properties;

(2) whether in respect of the first and second appellants the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that they had recovered the stolen goods dishonestly pursuant to a common intention on their part; and

(3) whether in respect of the third appellant, the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that he had knowledge that the goods were stolen properties.

The respondent submitted that none of the above questions of law were of public interest and that this was an attempt by the appellants to appeal against their convictions which had been finally determined by law.

The relevant provisions of s 60 of the SCJA state :

(1) When an appeal from a decision of a subordinate court in a criminal matter has been determined by the High Court, the Judge may, on the application of any party and shall on the application of the Public Prosecutor, reserve for the decision of the Court of Appeal any question of law of public interest which has arisen in the course of the appeal and the determination of which by the Judge has affected the event of the appeal.

...

(5) For the purposes of this section but without prejudice to the generality of its provisions -

(a) any question of law regarding which there is a conflict of judicial authority shall be deemed to be a question of public interest; and

(b) the reservation of a question of law for the consideration of the High Court under the provisions of any written law relating to criminal procedure or the exercise by the...