Lwee Kwi Ling Mary v Public Prosecutor: Application to Suspend Sentence Pending Presidential Petition
Mary Lwee Kwi Ling applied to the High Court of Singapore, seeking a suspension of her sentence for criminal intimidation, pending a petition to the President based on new evidence. Yong Pung How CJ dismissed the application, holding that the court lacked the power to suspend a sentence once it had commenced, as that power is vested exclusively in the President under the Republic of Singapore Independence Act.
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
Application to suspend sentence pending petition to the President. The court held it lacked the power to suspend the sentence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Motion dismissed | Won | Sia Aik Kor of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Lwee Kwi Ling Mary | Applicant | Individual | Motion dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Sia Aik Kor | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Edmond Pereira | Edmond Pereira & Partners |
4. Facts
- Mary was convicted of criminal intimidation and sentenced to 10 weeks' imprisonment.
- Mary's appeal was dismissed, and her sentence was enhanced to three months.
- Mary commenced serving her sentence on 4 February 2003.
- Mary applied to suspend her sentence pending a petition to the President.
- The basis of her petition was new evidence from a witness who admitted to giving false evidence.
5. Formal Citations
- Lwee Kwi Ling Mary v Public Prosecutor, CM 4/2003, [2003] SGHC 39
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mary convicted by the magistrate on a charge of criminal intimidation. | |
| High Court dismissed Mary's appeal and enhanced her sentence to three months’ imprisonment. | |
| Mary commenced serving her sentence. | |
| High Court dismissed Mary's application to suspend her sentence. |
7. Legal Issues
- Power to Suspend Sentence
- Outcome: The court held that it did not possess the power to suspend the execution of the applicant's sentence.
- Category: Jurisdictional
8. Remedies Sought
- Suspension of sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Constitutional Law
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lim Teck Leng Roland v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2001] 4 SLR 61 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a sentencing court could entertain an application under s 223 of the CPC for a deferment of the commencement of a sentence it passed even after a decision had been made previously on the commencement date of the sentence. |
| Jabar v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR 617 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the President has the exclusive power to order a stay of execution under s 8(1) of the Republic of Singapore Independence Act. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Republic of Singapore Independence Act | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Suspension of sentence
- Presidential petition
- Criminal intimidation
- Republic of Singapore Independence Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
15.2 Keywords
- suspension of sentence
- presidential petition
- criminal procedure
- constitutional law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Sentencing | 80 |
| Criminal Procedure | 80 |
| Constitutional Law | 75 |
16. Subjects
- Constitutional Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing