Lee Cheong Ngan v PP: Building Act Violation & Plea Validity
Lee Cheong Ngan and Chiong Yen Bao, joint owners of a property, appealed to the High Court of Singapore against their conviction in the Magistrate's Court for failing to comply with a notice issued by the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) under the Buildings and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act. They sought to introduce additional evidence and argued that their guilty pleas were invalid due to alleged inadequacies of their counsel and the interpreter. Yong Pung How CJ allowed the criminal motions to adduce new evidence, but dismissed the petitions for criminal revision, finding no serious injustice to warrant setting aside the convictions.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Criminal motions allowed to adduce new evidence, but petitions for criminal revision dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Lee Cheong Ngan and Chiong Yen Bao challenged their conviction for failing to comply with a BCA notice, but the High Court dismissed their appeal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed | Won | James Lee of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Lee Cheong Ngan alias Lee Cheong Yuen | Applicant | Individual | Criminal revision dismissed | Lost | |
| Chiong Yen Bao | Applicant | Individual | Criminal revision dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| James Lee | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Paul Fitzgerald | Stamford Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- Lee and Chiong are husband and wife, and joint owners of the premises at No 69 Toh Tuck Road.
- The property adjoining the rear of the premises is No 37 Toh Tuck Place.
- A brick retaining wall with an attached chain-link meshed fence lies near the boundary between the premises and No 37 Toh Tuck Place.
- The Building and Construction Authority issued a notice to Lee and Chiong on 20 July 2001, directing them to repair the damaged fence at the back of the premises by 19 August 2001.
- Lee Min Kwang wrote to the Building and Construction Authority on 15 August 2001, asking for more time to repair the fence.
- Lee and Chiong failed to comply with the notice issued by the Building and Construction Authority.
- Lee and Chiong were charged with a continuing offence under s 4(3) of the Act.
5. Formal Citations
- Lee Cheong Ngan alias Lee Cheong Yuen v Public Prosecutor and Other Applications, CM 7/2004, 8/2004, Cr Rev 11/2004, 12/2004, [2004] SGHC 91
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Officers from the Building and Construction Authority visited the premises to inspect the retaining wall and fence between January and March 2001. | |
| The Building and Construction Authority wrote to Lee and Chiong, directing them to repair the fence by 14 April 2001. | |
| Deadline for Lee and Chiong to repair the fence as directed by the Building and Construction Authority. | |
| Phua Chee Sim, an officer from the Building and Construction Authority, inspected the retaining wall and fence. | |
| The Building and Construction Authority issued a notice to Lee and Chiong under s 4(1) of the Buildings and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act. | |
| Lee Min Kwang wrote to the Building and Construction Authority, asking for more time to repair the fence. | |
| Deadline for Lee and Chiong to repair the damaged fence at the back of the premises. | |
| Phua conducted another inspection of the retaining wall and fence. | |
| Two summonses were issued against Lee and Chiong respectively. | |
| Lee and Chiong appeared before the magistrate. | |
| Lee and Chiong pleaded guilty before the magistrate, and were convicted. | |
| Lee and Chiong were charged with a continuing offence under s 4(3) of the Act. | |
| Lee and Chiong filed four applications to challenge their convictions on the earlier February 2002 charges. | |
| The High Court delivered its decision, allowing the criminal motions but dismissing the petitions for criminal revision. |
7. Legal Issues
- Failure to comply with notice issued by the Building and Construction Authority
- Outcome: The court found that Lee and Chiong were guilty of an offence under s 4(3) of the Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Whether failure to comply with notice issued by the Building and Construction Authority is a strict liability offence
- Outcome: The court did not find it necessary to decide if s 4(3) of the Act did indeed create a strict liability offence, as Lee and Chiong clearly possessed the requisite mens rea in any case.
- Category: Substantive
- Whether defence of reasonable care available
- Outcome: The court found that even if the defence of reasonable care was available to Lee and Chiong, their conduct fell far short of what was required.
- Category: Substantive
- Revision of proceedings
- Outcome: The court allowed the criminal motions to adduce new evidence, but dismissed the petitions for criminal revision.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Adducing fresh evidence
- Plea of guilt
- Validity of plea of guilt
- Outcome: The court found that both Lee and Chiong were aware of the particulars of the charge, and understood the nature and consequences of their pleas.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Allegations against defence counsel
- Allegations against interpreter
- Whether accused understood nature and consequences of plea
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of convictions
9. Cause of Actions
- Failure to comply with notice issued by the Building and Construction Authority
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Revision
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ladd v Marshall | N/A | Yes | [1954] 1 WLR 1489 | N/A | Cited for the three conditions that must be fulfilled when deciding if evidence sought to be adduced is necessary. |
| Juma’at bin Samad v PP | High Court | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR 338 | Singapore | Cited as the case where the framework in Ladd v Marshall was adopted. |
| Chan Chun Yee v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 638 | Singapore | Cited as a case that affirmed the authority of Juma’at bin Samad v PP. |
| Tan Sai Tiang v PP | High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 439 | Singapore | Cited as a case that affirmed the authority of Juma’at bin Samad v PP. |
| Annis bin Abdullah v PP | High Court | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR 93 | Singapore | Cited as a case that affirmed the authority of Juma’at bin Samad v PP. |
| 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. |
| Teo Hee Heng v PP | High Court | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR 168 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court will exercise its revisionary power sparingly, to ensure that it does not degenerate into a convenient form of “backdoor appeal”. |
| Ma Teresa Bebango Bedico v PP | High Court | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR 192 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there must have been some error, illegality, impropriety or irregularity, and it must also have resulted in grave and serious injustice. |
| Lee Eng Hock v PP | High Court | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR 364 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there must have been some error, illegality, impropriety or irregularity, and it must also have resulted in grave and serious injustice. |
| Ganesun s/o Kannan v PP | High Court | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR 560 | Singapore | Cited for adopting the three common law safeguards for a valid plea of guilt as laid down in Lee Weng Tuck v PP. |
| Lee Weng Tuck v PP | N/A | Yes | [1989] 2 MLJ 143 | N/A | Cited for the three common law safeguards for a valid plea of guilt. |
| Mok Swee Kok v PP | High Court | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR 140 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court has a legal duty to record a statement of facts following an accused’s plea of guilt, and to scrutinise the statement to ensure that all the elements of the charge are made out. |
| M V Balakrishnan v PP | High Court | No | [1998] SGHC 416 | Singapore | Cited for the argument that the defence of due diligence or reasonable care should have been available to them. |
| M V Balakrishnan v PP | High Court | No | [1998] 1 CLAS 357 | Singapore | Cited for the argument that the defence of due diligence or reasonable care should have been available to them. |
| Tan Cheng Kwee v PP | High Court | No | [2002] 3 SLR 390 | Singapore | Cited for the argument that the defence of due diligence or reasonable care should have been available to them. |
| Comfort Management Pte Ltd v PP | High Court | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR 67 | Singapore | Cited for adopting the approach established in Sweet v Parsley and Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General of Hong Kong, to decide if the relevant offence was one of strict liability. |
| Sweet v Parsley | N/A | Yes | [1970] AC 132 | N/A | Cited for the approach to decide if the relevant offence was one of strict liability. |
| Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General of Hong Kong | N/A | Yes | [1985] AC 1 | N/A | Cited for the approach to decide if the relevant offence was one of strict liability. |
| Lim Hean Nerng v Lim Ee Choo | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 585 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that delay would generally be immaterial in a case of injustice, it may indicate, in some circumstances that there was in fact no injustice caused. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Buildings and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act (Cap 30, 2000 Rev Ed) s 4(1) | Singapore |
| Buildings and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act (Cap 30, 2000 Rev Ed) s 4(3) | Singapore |
| Buildings and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act (Cap 30, 2000 Rev Ed) s 20(1)(b) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 268 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 257(1) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) s 23 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 180(b) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Building and Construction Authority
- Buildings and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act
- Criminal revision
- Plea of guilt
- Strict liability
- Defence of reasonable care
- Notice
- Retaining wall
- Chain-link fence
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Law
- Building and Construction Authority
- Buildings and Common Property Act
- Criminal Revision
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Law | 70 |
| Construction Law | 60 |
| Administrative Law | 40 |
| Civil Procedure | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Building and Construction Law