Tee Teng Heng v PP: Criminal Trespass, Intent to Annoy, and Requisite Evidence
In Tee Teng Heng v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal against the conviction of Tee Teng Heng for criminal trespass. Tee, a former employee of the Housing and Development Board (HDB), was dismissed and, believing in a conspiracy, repeatedly entered HDB premises after being banned. The court, led by Chief Justice Yong Pung How, upheld the conviction, finding that Tee's intent to annoy could be inferred from his actions. The court enhanced the sentence to include imprisonment, citing Tee's repeated intrusions and harassment of HDB staff.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Tee Teng Heng was convicted of criminal trespass for entering HDB premises after being banned. The court upheld the conviction and enhanced the sentence, emphasizing the intent to annoy.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Judgment for Respondent | Won | Hamidul Haq of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Tee Teng Heng | Appellant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Hamidul Haq | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Wilfred Goh Boon Cheong | Wilfred Goh & Partners |
4. Facts
- Appellant was dismissed from HDB on 2 February 1996.
- Appellant believed his dismissal was due to a conspiracy within HDB management.
- Appellant was banned from entering HDB premises.
- Appellant entered HDB premises on 8 March 2000 without authorization.
- Appellant intended to confront Goh Sin Tok regarding his dismissal.
- Appellant had previously entered the premises without authorization.
- Appellant was escorted to the security office and arrested.
5. Formal Citations
- Tee Teng Heng v Public Prosecutor, MA 112/2000, [2000] SGHC 230
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant dismissed by the Housing and Development Board | |
| Appellant tried to enter the premises but was barred | |
| Appellant slipped into the premises and confronted Goh Sin Tok | |
| Appellant entered HDB Centre and was arrested | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Criminal Trespass
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant had the requisite intent to annoy and upheld the conviction for criminal trespass.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Intent to annoy
- Proof of intent
- Reasonable belief of legitimate grounds
- Related Cases:
- [1993] 3 SLR 442
- [1999] 3 SLR 116
- [1956] MLJ 44
- [1992] 2 SLR 938
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
9. Cause of Actions
- Criminal Trespass
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
11. Industries
- Government
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PP v Seah Soon Keong | High Court | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR 442 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that intent to annoy can be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the offence. |
| PP v Pardeep Singh | High Court | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR 116 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the intent to annoy need not be the primary motive for entering the premises. |
| Ong Eng Guan v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1956] MLJ 44 | Malaysia | Cited to support the proposition that if the accused reasonably believes he has legitimate grounds for being on the premises, intent to annoy should not be inferred, but distinguished because the appellant knew he was banned. |
| PP v Ker Ban Siong | High Court | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 938 | Singapore | Cited as an example where intent to annoy was inferred because the accused entered premises despite being banned. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 24) s 41 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224) s 447 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) s 256 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal trespass
- Intent to annoy
- Requisite intent
- Unauthorised entry
- HDB
- Dismissal
- Conspiracy
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal trespass
- Intent to annoy
- Singapore
- HDB
- Appeal
- Sentence
- Property
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Trespass | 90 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Criminal Procedure | 60 |
| Sentencing | 50 |
| Property Law | 40 |
| Company Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Property Law
- Trespass