Lim Hong Kheng v Public Prosecutor: Extension of Time for Appeal, Criminal Procedure
In Lim Hong Kheng v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore, presided over by Sundaresh Menon JC, addressed the applicant's motion for an extension of time to file her petition of appeal after being convicted of abetting her son in the employment of a foreign domestic worker in breach of the Employment of Foreign Workers Act. The court allowed the motion, emphasizing that the court has discretion under Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code to ensure substantial justice, considering the length and explanation of the delay, and the prospects of the appeal.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Motion granted; extension of time allowed for filing the petition of appeal.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court allowed Lim Hong Kheng's motion for an extension of time to file her appeal petition, emphasizing the court's discretion to ensure substantial justice.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Motion Denied | Lost | Hay Hung Chun of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Lim Hong Kheng | Applicant | Individual | Motion Granted | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Hay Hung Chun | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Wong Hin Pkin Wendell | Drew & Napier LLC |
4. Facts
- Lim Hong Kheng was convicted of abetting her son in the employment of a foreign domestic worker.
- The conviction was for breaching the conditions of the worker's work permit.
- The applicant filed her notice of appeal within the prescribed time.
- Her solicitors received the notes of evidence and grounds of decision but delayed informing her.
- The applicant changed solicitors, further delaying the process.
- The petition of appeal was prepared but rejected due to the expiration of the filing deadline.
5. Formal Citations
- Lim Hong Kheng v Public Prosecutor, Cr M 13/2006, MA 148/2005, [2006] SGHC 100
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Lim Hong Kheng convicted of abetting her son in the employment of a foreign domestic worker. | |
| Applicant's solicitors received certified copy of notes of evidence and grounds of decision. | |
| Applicant's solicitors sent the communication from the Subordinate Courts to the Applicant. | |
| Applicant received the grounds of decision. | |
| Applicant met with new solicitors and a petition of appeal was prepared. | |
| Attempt to file the petition of appeal was rejected. | |
| High Court granted the motion for extension of time to file petition of appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Extension of Time for Filing Appeal
- Outcome: The court exercised its discretion to allow the extension of time for the applicant to file her petition of appeal.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Delay in filing petition of appeal
- Default of solicitors
8. Remedies Sought
- Extension of time to file petition of appeal
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saw Yew Choy v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 MLJ 493 | Malaysia | Discussed the principles for extending time to file an appeal, particularly regarding the default of counsel and the presumption of innocence. |
| Jumari bin Mohamed v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [1982] 1 MLJ 282 | Malaysia | Interpreted 'substantial justice' to include justice to society at large, requiring consideration of the merits of the proposed appeal. |
| Veerasingam v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [1958] MLJ 76 | Malaysia | Stated that substantial justice is done when a rightful conviction is upheld and a wrongful one quashed. |
| Public Prosecutor v Sundaravelu | Unknown | Yes | [1967] 1 MLJ 79 | Malaysia | Emphasized that the court has discretion in allowing applications and no hard and fast rules can be laid down. |
| Ishak bin Hj Shaari v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1997] 5 MLJ 28 | Malaysia | Applied the dictum in Public Prosecutor v Sundaravelu, emphasizing the court's discretion. |
| Khor Cheng Wah v Sungai Way Leasing Sdn Bhd | Unknown | Yes | [1996] 1 MLJ 223 | Malaysia | Cited as an instance where counsel's default was unsuccessfully relied upon to justify an extension. |
| Stansfield Business International Pte Ltd v Vithya Sri Sumathis | Unknown | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR 239 | Singapore | Suggested that default on the part of one’s solicitors could not be relied on to warrant the exercise of the court’s discretion. |
| Nomura Regionalisation Venture Fund Ltd v Ethical Investments Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR 686 | Singapore | Clarified that mistakes of the solicitor could be sufficient to justify an extension of time, depending on the circumstances of each case. |
| Nomura Regionalisation Venture Fund Ltd v Ethical Investments Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 4 SLR 46 | Singapore | Affirmed the statement of principle articulated by Lai Siu Chiu J, that there is no absolute rule of law which prescribes that an error on the part of a solicitor or his staff can never, under any circumstances, be a sufficient ground to grant an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. |
| Zulkifli bin Puasa v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1985] 1 MLJ 461 | Brunei | Established the factors to be considered upon an application for an extension of time: the length of the delay, the explanation for the delay, and the likelihood of success of the appeal. |
| Anuar bin Othman v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1990] SLR 1180 | Singapore | Followed Zulkifli bin Puasa v Public Prosecutor and considered the prospects in the appeal. |
| Seah Hee Tect v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 210 | Singapore | Followed Zulkifli bin Puasa v Public Prosecutor and denied the application due to lack of explanation for the delay and no basis to assess the prospects in the appeal. |
| Salwant Singh v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR 36 | Singapore | Endorsed the dicta in Zulkifli and its adoption in Seah Hee Tect, dismissing the application because the intended appeal had no prospect of success. |
| Public Service Commission v Lai Swee Lin Linda | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR 644 | Singapore | Discussed the threshold for excluding cases that are hopeless and likely to result in a waste of judicial time and the resources that go with that. |
| Hau Khee Wee v Chua Kian Tong | Unknown | Yes | [1986] SLR 484 | Singapore | Identified four factors to be borne in mind in deciding whether to grant an extension of time to file a notice of appeal in a civil case. |
| Ratnam v Cumarasamy | Unknown | Yes | [1965] 1 MLJ 228 | Unknown | Beginning of authorities considered in Hau Khee Wee v Chua Kian Tong. |
| Pearson v Chen Chien Wen Edwin | Unknown | Yes | [1991] SLR 212 | Singapore | Endorsed the approach commended in Hau Khee Wee. |
| The Tokai Maru | Unknown | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 105 | Singapore | Endorsed the approach commended in Hau Khee Wee. |
| Ong Cheng Aik v Dayco Products Singapore Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR 561 | Singapore | Clarified that the Hau Khee Wee approach is applicable both to cases of applications to extend the time for appeal, as well as to those to extend the time for carrying out some other step to prosecute an existing appeal. |
| Lai Swee Lin Linda v AG | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] SGCA 58 | Singapore | Endorsed the approach commended in Hau Khee Wee. |
| R v Rhodes | Unknown | Yes | R v Rhodes (1910) 5 Cr App R 35 | England | Cited regarding the length of delay and whether it can be satisfactorily explained. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Section 250 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 5(3) read with s 23(1) of the Employment of Foreign Workers Act (Cap 91A, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 33(2) of the Employment of Foreign Workers Act (Cap 91A, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 247(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 247(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Extension of time
- Petition of appeal
- Substantial justice
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Default of solicitors
- Prospects of appeal
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal procedure
- Appeal
- Extension of time
- Singapore
- High Court
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Extension of Time | 80 |
| Criminal Revision | 70 |
| Sentencing | 60 |
| Employment Law | 40 |
| Administrative Law | 30 |
| Abetment | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Appeals
- Extension of Time