Public Prosecutor v Oh Hu Sung: Criminal Revision, Altering Judgments, Voluntarily Causing Hurt

In Public Prosecutor v Oh Hu Sung, the High Court of Singapore heard a criminal revision application concerning a District Judge's decision to reject the respondent's guilty plea for voluntarily causing hurt. The Chief Justice allowed the application, setting aside the District Judge's order and reinstating the original conviction and three-month imprisonment sentence. The key legal issue was whether the District Judge had the power to alter the judgment after pronouncing the sentence, considering Section 217(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application allowed; order for conviction and three months’ imprisonment reinstated.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Criminal revision case where the High Court reinstated the original conviction and sentence for voluntarily causing hurt, addressing the power of subordinate courts to alter judgments.

1.7 Decision Date

15 October 2003

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Applicant	Government Agency	Order for conviction and three months’ imprisonment reinstated	Won	Amarjit Singh of Deputy Public Prosecutor
Oh Hu Sung	Respondent	Individual	Order rejecting plea of guilt set aside	Lost	V N of Heng Leong & Srinivasan S Gogula Kannan of Tan Leroy & Kannan

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Yong Pung How	Chief Justice	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Amarjit Singh	Deputy Public Prosecutor
V N	Heng Leong & Srinivasan
S Gogula Kannan	Tan Leroy & Kannan

4. Facts

The respondent, a Korean national, was charged with voluntarily causing grievous hurt to a Bangladeshi national.
The charge was later reduced to voluntarily causing hurt under s 323 of the Penal Code.
The respondent pleaded guilty to the reduced charge and was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment.
Counsel for the respondent applied for the plea to be rejected, claiming the respondent pleaded guilty by mistake.
The District Judge initially rejected the plea but later questioned the propriety of this decision.
The High Court found no obvious mistake in the first order and reinstated the original conviction and sentence.

5. Formal Citations

Public Prosecutor v Oh Hu Sung, CR 10/2003, [2003] SGHC 248

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2003-07-19	Respondent pleaded guilty to voluntarily causing hurt.
2003-07-19	District Judge sentenced the respondent to three months’ imprisonment.
2003-07-19	Counsel applied for the plea to be rejected.
2003-07-19	District Judge rejected the plea of guilt.
2003-07-22	Case re-mentioned; District Judge informed parties of his research.
2003-10-16	High Court allowed the application, reinstating the original conviction and sentence.

7. Legal Issues

Power of subordinate courts to alter judgments
- Outcome: The High Court held that subordinate courts can alter judgments to rectify mistakes under s 217(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code before the court rises for the day, even after sentence is pronounced.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Functus officio
  - Rectification of mistakes
Voluntarily causing hurt
- Outcome: The High Court found that the sentence of three months' imprisonment was appropriate given the seriousness of the injury and the aggravating factor that the victim was a foreign worker under the respondent's charge.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Aggravating circumstances
  - Nature and consequences of plea

8. Remedies Sought

Criminal Revision
Setting aside the second order

9. Cause of Actions

Voluntarily Causing Hurt

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Law
Criminal Appeals

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Ang Poh Chuan v PP	High Court	Yes	[1996] 1 SLR 326	Singapore	Cited for the principles governing the exercise of the High Court’s revisionary powers, requiring a serious injustice or something palpably wrong in the decision.
Jabar v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[1995] 1 SLR 617	Singapore	Cited for the established law that a judge is generally functus officio after sentence is pronounced.
Ganesun s/o Kannan v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[1996] 3 SLR 560	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a judge is functus officio after sentence is pronounced and the discretion to allow an accused to retract a plea of guilt only exists as long as the court is not functus officio.
Chiaw Wai Onn v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[1997] 3 SLR 445	Singapore	Cited for the detailed analysis of Section 217 of the Criminal Procedure Code, establishing that subsection (1) lays down a general prohibition against the alteration of judgments by the subordinate courts, while subsection (2) is an excepting proviso.
Duncan v Dixon	Chancery Division	Yes	[1890] 44 Ch D 211	England and Wales	Cited for the effect of an excepting or qualifying proviso.
Corp of the City of Toronto v AG for Canada	Privy Council	Yes	[1946] AC 32	Canada	Cited for the effect of an excepting or qualifying proviso.
Mullins v Treasurer of the County of Surrey	Queen's Bench Division	Yes	[1880] 5 QBD 170	England and Wales	Cited for the effect of an excepting or qualifying proviso.
Virgie Rizza V Leong v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	CR 2/1998, MA 264/1997, HC	Singapore	Cited for the application of Section 217 and the discretion of a trial judge to allow an accused to retract a plea of guilt, which must be exercised judicially and for valid reasons.
Lim Teck Leng Roland v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2001] 4 SLR 61	Singapore	Cited for the principle that Section 217(1) lays down a general prohibition against the alteration of judgments by the subordinate courts, while Section 217(2) is an exception.
Public Prosecutor v Lee Wei Zheng Winston	High Court	Yes	[2002] 4 SLR 33	Singapore	Cited for the principle that Section 217(1) lays down a general prohibition against the alteration of judgments by the subordinate courts, while Section 217(2) is an exception.
Chuah Gin Synn v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2003] 2 SLR 179	Singapore	Cited for the definition of when the court rises for the day.
Monteiro v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[1964] 1 MLJ 338	Malaysia	Cited as an example of a mistake by the court that falls under Section 217(2).
Lee Weng Tuck v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[1989] 2 MLJ 143	Malaysia	Cited for the procedural safeguards before a plea of guilt can be regarded as the basis for a conviction.
Mok Swee Kok v PP	High Court	Yes	[1994] 3 SLR 140	Singapore	Cited for the statement of facts being an integral part of criminal procedure in Singapore.
Koh Thian Huat v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2002] 3 SLR 28	Singapore	Cited for the principle that when an accused has unqualifiedly admitted to the contents of the statement of facts, these facts should not thereafter be readily open to dispute.
Ng Chiew Kiat v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2000] 1 SLR 370	Singapore	Cited for the principle that any hardship caused to the offender’s family as a result of his imprisonment has little mitigating value, save in very exceptional or extreme circumstances.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68)	Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224)	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322)	Singapore
Immigration Act (Cap 133)	Singapore
Road Traffic Act (Cap 276)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Criminal revision
Functus officio
Voluntarily causing hurt
Section 217(2) CPC
Mistake
Plea of guilt
Aggravating circumstances

15.2 Keywords

Criminal revision
Altering judgments
Voluntarily causing hurt
Singapore High Court
Criminal Procedure Code

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Sentencing	90
Criminal Procedure	90
Voluntarily Causing Hurt	80
Offences	70
Criminal Revision	60
Criminal Law	50

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure
Sentencing