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 |
Citation | [1995] SGHC 143 |
Date | 08 June 1995 |
Year | 1995 |
Plaintiff Counsel | SK Kumar (SK Kumar & Associates) |
Docket Number | Criminal Motion No 4 of 1995 |
Defendant Counsel | Ong Hian Sun (Deputy Public Prosecutor) |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Published date | 19 September 2003 |
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Azizul Ahmad Shalim
...8 March 2017 at [12]. 50 This has been affirmed in various High Court cases, including Yeo Hwee Hua and others v Public Prosecutor [1995] 2 SLR(R) 515 at [8], Chiaw Wai Onn v Public Prosecutor [1997] 2 SLR(R) 233 at [49], Nomura Taiji and others v Public Prosecutor [1998] 1 SLR(R) 259 at [7......
-
Public Prosecutor v Yeo Siew Kim
...Mere suspicion is not enough to satisfy the ingredient of 'reason to believe': Tan Ser Juay v PP [1972] 1 MLJ 6; Yeo Hwee Hua & Ors v PP [1995] 3 SLR 40. As Yong CJ observed in Koh Hak Boon, reason to believe involves a lesser degree of conviction than certainty and a higher one than specul......
-
Daniel De Costa Augustin v PP
...the specific facts of the case is a question of fact. For example, the Court of Appeal in Yeo Hwee Hua and others v Public Prosecutor [1995] 2 SLR(R) 515 (“Yeo Hwee Hua”) held that the application of established standards of proof to the facts of the case, to determine whether the Prosecuti......