Teo Hee Heng v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Revision, Duress Defence & Sentence Enhancement
In Teo Hee Heng v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard a criminal revision petition on 4 July 2000, where Teo Hee Heng challenged his conviction for extortion, claiming he acted under duress. The High Court, led by Chief Justice Yong Pung How, dismissed the petition, finding no valid duress defense, and enhanced Teo Hee Heng's sentence, deeming the original sentence manifestly inadequate.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Petition dismissed and sentence enhanced accordingly.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Teo Hee Heng's conviction for extortion was challenged via criminal revision, arguing duress. The High Court dismissed the revision and enhanced the sentence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teo Hee Heng | Petitioner | Individual | Petition Dismissed, Sentence Enhanced | Lost | K Niraiselvan |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Sentence Enhanced | Won | Hee Mee Lin |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| K Niraiselvan | Kumar & Kumar |
| Hee Mee Lin | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
4. Facts
- The petitioner pleaded guilty to extorting $100 by threatening a woman about her daughter.
- The petitioner was instigated by Leow Yong Kee to make the extortion calls.
- The petitioner claimed he acted under duress due to threats from Leow.
- The victim's daughter was missing, and the petitioner exploited this situation.
- The petitioner made demeaning demands to the victim during the phone calls.
- The petitioner admitted to the statement of facts without qualifications in the lower court.
- The High Court found the petitioner's duress claims to be unsubstantiated and incredible.
5. Formal Citations
- Teo Hee Heng v Public Prosecutor, Cr Rev 9/2000, [2000] SGHC 125
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Victim's daughter went missing. | |
| Victim placed advertisements in newspapers to locate her daughter. | |
| Petitioner called the victim multiple times demanding money for her daughter's whereabouts. | |
| Petitioner was arrested by the police. | |
| Hearing of the petition. | |
| High Court dismissed the application and enhanced the sentence imposed on the petitioner. |
7. Legal Issues
- Duress
- Outcome: The court held that the defense of duress was not applicable as the threats were not imminent, persistent, or extreme.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Imminence of threat
- Reasonable apprehension of harm
- Availability of alternatives
- Validity of Guilty Plea
- Outcome: The court held that the guilty plea was valid and unequivocal as the accused understood the nature and consequences of the plea and intended to admit without qualification the offence alleged against him.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Understanding of nature and consequences
- Absence of qualification
- Voluntariness
- Adequacy of Sentence
- Outcome: The court held that the original sentence was manifestly inadequate given the aggravating circumstances and the petitioner's level of culpability, and enhanced the sentence accordingly.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Mitigating factors
- Aggravating circumstances
- Culpability of offender
8. Remedies Sought
- Quashing of conviction
9. Cause of Actions
- Extortion
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Revision
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mok Swee Kok v PP | High Court | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR 140 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the High Court's revisionary powers should be exercised sparingly and only when a serious injustice has occurred. |
| Ang Poh Chuan v PP | High Court | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR 326 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court should be invoked only if the court is satisfied that some serious injustice has been caused which warrants the exercise of its powers of revision. |
| Ngian Chin Boon v PP | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 119 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court should be invoked only if the court is satisfied that some serious injustice has been caused which warrants the exercise of its powers of revision. |
| PP v Mohamed Noor bin Abdul Majeed | High Court | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR 17 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court should be invoked only if the court is satisfied that some serious injustice has been caused which warrants the exercise of its powers of revision. |
| PP v Fung Yuk Shing | High Court | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR 69 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that threats must have been imminent, persistent and extreme to constitute duress. |
| Wong Yoke Wah v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR 246 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the defence of duress is available only if the threats gave rise to reasonable fear of `instant death` and nothing short of such a serious threat would be sufficient to constitute duress and rejecting the wider common law position on duress. |
| Shaiful Edham bin Adam & Anor v PP | High Court | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR 57 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that threats must have been imminent, persistent and extreme to constitute duress. |
| R v Hurley & Murray | Supreme Court of Victoria | No | [1967] VR 526 | Australia | Cited for the wider doctrine of duress under common law, which was ultimately rejected in favor of the Penal Code's definition. |
| Lee Weng Tuck v PP | High Court | Yes | [1989] 2 MLJ 143 | Singapore | Cited for the three safeguards that must be observed in order for a plea of guilt to be valid and unequivocal. |
| Ganesun s/o Kannan v PP | High Court | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR 560 | Singapore | Cited for the three safeguards that must be observed in order for a plea of guilt to be valid and unequivocal. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| s 94 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 385 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) | Singapore |
| s 509 of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| s 7(3) of the Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321) | Singapore |
| s 23 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) | Singapore |
| s 268 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) | Singapore |
| ss 251, 255, 256 and 257 of the CPC | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal revision
- Duress
- Extortion
- Guilty plea
- Sentence enhancement
- Mitigating factors
- Aggravating circumstances
- Revisionary powers
- Statement of facts
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal revision
- Duress
- Extortion
- Sentence enhancement
- Singapore High Court
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Duress
- Extortion
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing
- Duress