Public Prosecutor v Sundaraju: Offence of Being Armed with Dangerous Instrument
In Public Prosecutor v Sundaraju s/o Munusamy, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by the prosecution against the decision of a magistrate to acquit the accused, Sundaraju s/o Munusamy, without calling for his defence. The accused was charged under Section 22(1)(a) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act for being found armed with a dangerous instrument (a screwdriver) in a public place. The High Court, presided over by Chief Justice Yong Pung How, allowed the appeal, finding that the prosecution had established a prima facie case that, if unrebutted, would warrant the conviction of the accused. The case was remitted back to the lower court to call for the defence.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the magistrate erred in acquitting the accused without calling for his defence on a charge under s 22(1)(a) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Appellant | Government Agency | Appeal Allowed | Won | Lee Lit Cheng of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Sundaraju s/o Munusamy | Respondent | Individual | Case Remitted | Remanded |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lee Lit Cheng | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| David Rasif | David Rasif & Partners |
4. Facts
- Accused was seen by police officers at Perak Road at about 3.14 am.
- Accused was seen dropping a black object to the right side of his trousers.
- Accused attempted to shake off the object.
- The object was later ascertained to be a 15 cm long screwdriver.
- Accused denied that the object was his when questioned by Sgt Ahmad.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Sundaraju s/o Munusamy, MA 16/2002, [2002] SGHC 158
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Accused found with screwdriver | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Whether accused was 'armed with' a dangerous instrument
- Outcome: The court held that an inference could reasonably be drawn that the accused was 'armed with a dangerous or offensive instrument'.
- Category: Substantive
- Whether a prima facie case was made out
- Outcome: The court held that the prosecution had made out a case which, if unrebutted and uncontradicted, would warrant the conviction of the accused.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction of the accused
9. Cause of Actions
- Offence under s 22(1)(a) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Haw Tua Tau v PP | High Court | Yes | [1980-1981] SLR 73 | Singapore | Cited for the principles to be applied at the close of the prosecution’s case in determining whether a prima facie case has been made out. |
| Tan Siew Chay v PP | High Court | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR 14 | Singapore | Cited for adopting the principles laid down in Haw Tua Tau v PP regarding the establishment of a prima facie case. |
| Ong Kiang Kek v PP | Court of Criminal Appeal of Singapore | Yes | [1970] 2 MLJ 283 | Singapore | Cited to clarify that the court need not be satisfied that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at the close of the prosecution's case. |
| R v Mitchell and Maclean | Saskatchewan Court of Appeal | Yes | [1932] 1 W.W.R 657 | Canada | Cited for its interpretation of the word 'found' in the context of being armed with an instrument, but distinguished by the court. |
| Rowe v Conti | Supreme Court of Victoria | Yes | [1958] VR 547 | Australia | Cited for the interpretation of 'found armed' to mean having the weapon immediately ready for use. |
| Miller v Hrvojevic | Supreme Court of Victoria | Yes | [1972] VR 305 | Australia | Cited for the interpretation of 'armed' to mean the weapon must be available for immediate use. |
| R v Jones (Keith Desmond) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1987] 2 All ER 692 | England | Cited for the interpretation of 'armed' to involve either physically carrying arms or knowing they are immediately available. |
| R v Kelt | N/A | Yes | [1977] 3 All ER 1099 | England | Cited for guidance on the meaning of 'having a gun with you' in the context of being armed. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Cap 184) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Armed with
- Dangerous instrument
- Prima facie case
- Submission of no case to answer
- Lawful purpose
15.2 Keywords
- armed with dangerous instrument
- prima facie case
- criminal law
- criminal procedure
- appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Public Order Law | 80 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Offences | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure