Lim Teck Leng Roland v PP: High Court's Power to Alter Judgment & Deferment of Sentence
In Lim Teck Leng Roland v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore, on 24 August 2001, addressed the applicant's motion for a further postponement of his imprisonment sentence. The applicant had previously been sentenced for multiple traffic offenses, and his initial request for deferment was granted. Yong Pung How CJ dismissed the subsequent application, clarifying that while the High Court has the power to review its orders, the applicant failed to provide sufficient justification for further deferment.
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
The High Court considered its power to alter a judgment regarding deferment of a sentence. The court dismissed the application for further deferment, finding no valid reason.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Motion Dismissed | Won | Anandan Bala of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Lim Teck Leng Roland | Applicant | Individual | Motion Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Anandan Bala | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Patrick Nai | Abraham Low & Partners |
4. Facts
- Applicant pleaded guilty to driving under disqualification, driving without insurance, failure to wear a seat belt, and speeding.
- Applicant was sentenced to imprisonment, disqualification, and a fine.
- Applicant's appeal against the sentences was dismissed.
- Applicant initially sought and was granted a deferment of sentence commencement.
- Applicant sought a further deferment to settle personal and work affairs.
- The High Court considered whether it had the power to grant a further deferment.
5. Formal Citations
- Lim Teck Leng Roland v Public Prosecutor, Cr M 28/2001, [2001] SGHC 234
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant sentenced to imprisonment, disqualification, and fine for traffic offenses. | |
| Appeal against sentences dismissed; initial deferment of sentence granted. | |
| Motion filed for further postponement of sentence commencement. | |
| Motion for further postponement heard. | |
| Motion dismissed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Power of High Court to Alter or Review its Judgment
- Outcome: The court clarified its interpretation of s 217, stating that while it has the power to review its orders, it will not do so lightly.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Functus officio
- Interpretation of s 217 Criminal Procedure Code
- Definition of 'Judgment'
- Outcome: The court determined that an order allowing deferment of sentence is not a 'judgment' within the meaning of s 217.
- Category: Procedural
- Deferment of Sentence
- Outcome: The court held that the burden is on the applicant to justify the court's discretion in granting deferment, and relevant considerations include the interests of justice and the need to prevent abuse of discretion.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Postponement of imprisonment sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chiaw Wai Onn v PP | High Court | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 445 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of section 217 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the High Court's power to alter or review its judgment. |
| PP v Heng You Nang | Unknown | Yes | [1949] MLJ 285 | Malaysia | Cited with approval for the principle that once a judgment in a criminal matter has been pronounced and signed, it cannot be altered. |
| Goh Ah San v The King | Unknown | No | [1938] MLJ 95 | Malaysia | Distinguished; not followed regarding the court's power to alter a judgment after it has been delivered. |
| Ooi Sim Yim v PP | Supreme Court | Yes | [1990] 1 MLJ 88 | Malaysia | Cited with approval regarding the interpretation of section 278 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Malaysia and the trial judge's power to substitute judgment. |
| Wong Hong Toy v PP | Court of Criminal Appeal | No | [1994] 2 SLR 396 | Singapore | Disagreed with regarding the interpretation of section 217 and the High Court's power to alter or review its judgment. |
| Chhotey Lal v Tinkey Lal | Unknown | No | [1935] AIR 815 | India | Cited for the definition of 'judgment' as an order passed on full enquiry and after hearing both parties. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| s 217 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) | Singapore |
| s 43(4) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276) | Singapore |
| s 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189) | Singapore |
| s 63(4) of the Road Traffic Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Functus officio
- Judgment
- Deferment of sentence
- Criminal Procedure Code
- High Court
- Discretion
- Interests of justice
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal procedure
- Sentencing
- Judgment
- Deferment
- High Court
- Functus officio
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Functus Officio | 95 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Road Traffic Act | 80 |
| Judgments and Orders | 75 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Procedure and Sentencing