Ng Ai Tiong v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Reference on Abetment by Instigation under Penal Code
Ng Ai Tiong applied for a criminal motion under s 60 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act following his conviction for abetting an offence under s 116 read with s 193 of the Penal Code. The High Court, presided over by Chief Justice Yong Pung How, dismissed the motion, finding no merit in the questions of law raised by the applicant and noting a critical procedural error in the application.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Motion dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Criminal reference regarding abetment by instigation. The High Court dismissed the motion, finding no merit in the applicant's questions of law.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Motion dismissed | Won | Wong Keen Onn of Deputy Public Prosecutor Lim Jit Hee David of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Ng Ai Tiong | Applicant | Individual | Motion dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Wong Keen Onn | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Lim Jit Hee David | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| S.K. Kumar | SK Kumar & Associates |
4. Facts
- The applicant was convicted of abetting Roger Ong to give false evidence.
- The applicant's conviction arose from statements made to Roger Ong on 24 March 1999.
- The trial judge acquitted the applicant, finding no 'instigation'.
- The Public Prosecutor's appeal was allowed, and the applicant was convicted.
- The applicant applied for a criminal motion under s 60 of the SCJA.
- The applicant failed to clearly state the order sought in the motion paper.
5. Formal Citations
- Ng Ai Tiong v Public Prosecutor, Cr M 11/1999, [2000] SGHC 39
- PP v Ng Ai Tiong, MA 113/99, [2000] 1 SLR 454
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Encounter between the applicant and Roger Ong Soon Chye. | |
| Public Prosecutor's appeal heard in the High Court. | |
| Decision date of the criminal motion. |
7. Legal Issues
- Criminal Reference Application Requirements
- Outcome: The court found that the applicant failed to meet the procedural requirements for a criminal reference.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to state exact order sought
- Requirements to be satisfied under s 60 Supreme Court of Judicature Act
- Abetment by Instigation
- Outcome: The court found that the questions raised by the applicant regarding abetment by instigation did not warrant reference to the Court of Appeal.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Meaning of 'instigates' in s 107(a) of the Penal Code
- Requisite intention or knowledge of the person abetted and/or that of the abettor
- Mitigation Plea
- Outcome: The court rejected the applicant's contention that the court is duty-bound to invite the convicted person to present a mitigating plea.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Duty of court to invite accused to present mitigating plea
- Duty of court to defend or assist accused
8. Remedies Sought
- Criminal Reference to the Court of Appeal
9. Cause of Actions
- Abetment
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Criminal Law
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PP v Lim Tee Hian | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 45 | Singapore | Cited for the test on what constitutes `instigation` in abetment. |
| Abdul Salam bin Mohamed Salleh v PP | High Court | Yes | [1990] SLR 301 | Singapore | Cited for principles governing applications under s 60 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. |
| Abdul Salam bin Mohamed Salleh v PP | High Court | Yes | [1990] 3 MLJ 275 | Malaysia | Cited for principles governing applications under s 60 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. |
| Abdul Salam bin Mohamed Salleh v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1991] SLR 235 | Singapore | Cited for principles governing applications under s 60 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. |
| Abdul Salam bin Mohamed Salleh v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1991] 3 MLJ 280 | Malaysia | Cited for principles governing applications under s 60 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. |
| Chan Hiang Leng Colin v PP | High Court | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR 687 | Singapore | Cited for principles governing applications under s 60 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. |
| PP v Bridges Christopher | High Court | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR 217 | Singapore | Cited for principles governing applications under s 60 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. |
| Zeng Guoyuan v PP (No 2) | High Court | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 883 | Singapore | Cited for principles governing applications under s 60 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Instigation
- Abetment
- Criminal Reference
- Public Interest
- Mitigating Plea
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act
- Penal Code
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
- Abetment
- Instigation
- Criminal Reference
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Sentencing | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Criminal Revision | 75 |
| Administrative Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing