Cigar Affair v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Reference, Search Warrants & Trade Marks Act
Cigar Affair applied to the High Court for questions of law to be reserved for the Court of Appeal following the dismissal of their application to quash a search warrant related to suspected offences under the Trade Marks Act. The High Court, presided over by Justice Woo Bih Li, dismissed the application, finding that the questions posed were not of sufficient public interest or exceptional nature to warrant a reference to the Court of Appeal.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application by Cigar Affair for questions of law to be reserved for the Court of Appeal's determination regarding search warrants and the Trade Marks Act.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed | Won | Christina Koh of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Cigar Affair | Applicant | Corporation | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Christina Koh | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Kirpal Singh | Kirpal and Associates |
4. Facts
- Cigar Affair was in the business of dealing in cigars and other tobacco products.
- The Pacific Cigar Company (Singapore) Pte Ltd suspected Cigar Affair of infringing trade marks with the name “COHIBA”.
- A complaint was filed which led to the issue and execution of a search warrant authorising the seizure of any Cohiba cigars.
- Cigar Affair applied to quash the search warrant.
5. Formal Citations
- Cigar Affair v Public Prosecutor, Cr M 3/2005, [2005] SGHC 109
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Criminal Motion No 23 of 2004 filed by Cigar Affair to quash a search warrant. | |
| Decision date of the judgment. |
7. Legal Issues
- Criminal References
- Outcome: The court held that the questions posed by the applicant did not meet the criteria for a criminal reference to the Court of Appeal.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1991] SLR 235
- [1973] 2 MLJ 143
- [1982] 1 MLJ 139
- [1982] 2 MLJ 114
- [1997] 2 SLR 217
- [2005] 2 SLR 247
- Search Warrants
- Outcome: The court found no basis to set aside the search warrant.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- No remedies sought
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Intellectual Property Law
11. Industries
- Tobacco
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abdul Salam Bin Mohamed Salleh v PP | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1991] SLR 235 | Singapore | Cited for principles regarding applications under s 60 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. |
| Tan Yin Yen v PP | Federal Court | Yes | [1973] 2 MLJ 143 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that questions of law referred to the court should be of public interest. |
| Ragunathan v PR | Federal Court | Yes | [1982] 1 MLJ 139 | Malaysia | Cited for the test to determine whether a question of law raised is of public interest. |
| Nunis v PP | Federal Court | Yes | [1982] 2 MLJ 114 | Malaysia | Cited for the requirement that a question posed must be a question of law raised in the course of the appeal to the High Court and is of public interest. |
| PP v Bridges Christopher | High Court | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR 217 | Singapore | Cited for the principles of an application under s 60(1) SCJA. |
| Ong Beng Leong v PP (No 2) | High Court | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR 247 | Singapore | Cited for the principles governing an application under s 60 of the SCJA. |
| Heng Lee Handbags Co Pte Ltd v PP | High Court | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 760 | Singapore | Cited regarding the mode of application for review. |
| Lance Court Furnishings Pte Ltd v PP | High Court | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR 969 | Singapore | Cited regarding the mode of application for review and interpretation of s 49 TMA. |
| SM Summit Holdings Ltd v PP | High Court | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 922 | Singapore | Cited regarding the mode of application for review and interpretation of s 49 TMA. |
| Mobil Oil Australia Ltd v Guina Developments Pty Ltd | N/A | Yes | 33 IPR 82 | Australia | Cited regarding the power to seize documents which are evidence of an offence. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal Reference
- Search Warrant
- Trade Marks Act
- Public Interest
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Reference
- Search Warrant
- Trade Marks Act
- Singapore High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure | 80 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Sentencing | 40 |
| Patent Amendments | 25 |
| Administrative Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Intellectual Property Law
- Criminal Procedure