Ng Chye Huey v PP: Court of Appeal's Jurisdiction on Criminal Motion & Abuse of Process

In Ng Chye Huey and Another v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of Singapore, on January 24, 2007, dismissed a criminal motion brought by Ng Chye Huey and Erh Boon Tiong, who were facing criminal charges in the Subordinate Courts. The applicants sought an order directing the trial judge to facilitate the adduction of certain United Nations reports as evidence. The Court of Appeal found the motion to be misconceived, addressing issues of jurisdiction and potential abuse of process. The court clarified that it lacked the jurisdiction to hear the motion either as an appeal against a High Court decision or in its supervisory capacity over the Subordinate Courts.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed as misconceived.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Court of Appeal dismissed a criminal motion, clarifying its jurisdiction and addressing potential abuse of process in criminal proceedings.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyApplication dismissedWon
Hay Hung Chun of Deputy Public Prosecutor
Ng Chye HueyApplicantIndividualApplication dismissedLost
Erh Boon TiongApplicantIndividualApplication dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Kan Ting ChiuJudgeNo
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Tay Yong KwangJudgeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Hay Hung ChunDeputy Public Prosecutor
M RaviM Ravi & Co

4. Facts

  1. The applicants were arrested and charged under s 13B(1)(b) of the Miscellaneous Offences Act for displaying insulting writing.
  2. The applicants claimed trial, and their joint trial commenced in the Subordinate Courts on 28 August 2006.
  3. The applicants filed a criminal motion in the High Court, seeking orders to facilitate the adduction of UN reports as evidence.
  4. The High Court dismissed the motion, citing the principle of judicial independence and the need to complete the trial process.
  5. The applicants then filed the present motion before the Court of Appeal.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Ng Chye Huey and Another v Public Prosecutor, Cr M 24/2006, [2007] SGCA 3

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Applicants arrested and charged under s 13B(1)(b) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act.
Joint trial commenced in the Subordinate Courts.
Criminal Motion No 23 of 2006 filed in the High Court.
Choo Han Teck J dismissed the High Court motion.
Applicants filed the present motion before the Court of Appeal.
Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ motion.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the criminal motion either as an appeal against the High Court's decision or in its supervisory capacity.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear a criminal motion as an appeal against a High Court's finding on a criminal motion.
      • Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear a criminal motion in the exercise of the Court of Appeal's supervisory or revisionary jurisdiction.
    • Related Cases:
      • [2000] 2 SLR 137
      • [1994] 3 SLR 129
  2. Abuse of Process
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that the application bordered on abuse of process, as it was an attempt to relitigate matters already decided and to secure multiple opportunities to argue the same issue.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Whether the application amounted to an abuse of the court's process.
  3. Legal Adequacy of Application
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal found the applicants' notice of motion to be legally inadequate due to the omission of any reference to the relief that was in fact being sought.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Whether the omission to make reference to the remedy sought was sufficient grounds for disposing of the motion.
      • Whether the applicants' notice of motion was legally adequate.
    • Related Cases:
      • [2000] 2 SLR 358

8. Remedies Sought

  1. An order directing the trial judge in the Subordinate Courts to make a number of orders to facilitate the adduction of certain United Nations reports in evidence.
  2. A stay of the trial pending the hearing of the Criminal Motion.

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Ng Ai Tiong v PPSingapore High CourtYes[2000] 2 SLR 358SingaporeCited for the principle that applications before the court have to be sufficiently detailed so as to give both the court, as well as the opposing party, adequate notice of what is being sought by way of the proceedings.
Microsoft Corporation v SM Summit HoldingsSingapore Court of AppealYes[2000] 2 SLR 137SingaporeCited for the principle that the Court of Appeal is a creature of statute and is hence only seised of the jurisdiction that has been conferred upon it by the relevant provisions in the legislation creating it.
Abdullah bin A Rahman v PPSingapore Court of AppealYes[1994] 3 SLR 129SingaporeCited for the principle that the Court of Appeal is a creature of statute and is hence only seised of the jurisdiction that has been conferred upon it by the relevant provisions in the legislation creating it.
Chop Sum Thye v RexStraits Settlements Supreme CourtYes[1933] MLJ 87SingaporeCited for the principle that there is no inherent right to appeal from judicial determinations made by our courts.
Kulasingam v Public ProsecutorMalaysian Federal CourtYes[1978] 2 MLJ 243MalaysiaCited for the principle that there is no inherent right to appeal from judicial determinations made by our courts.
Knight Glenn Jeyasingam v PPSingapore High CourtYes[1999] 3 SLR 362SingaporeCited for the principle that a right of appeal has hence been said to be a “creature of statute” which requires legislative authority.
Ting Sie Huong v State Attorney-GeneralMalaysian Supreme CourtYes[1985] 1 MLJ 431MalaysiaCited for the principle that a right of appeal has hence been said to be a “creature of statute” which requires legislative authority.
R v West Kent Quarter Sessions Appeal CommitteeEnglish CourtYes[1951] 2 All ER 728England and WalesCited for the principle that no appeal from a court lies to any other court unless there is a statutory provision which gives a right to appeal.
Mohamed Razip v PPSingapore Court of AppealYes[1987] SLR 142SingaporeCited for the legislative history behind s 29A(2) of the SCJA.
Ang Cheng Hai v PPSingapore Court of AppealYes[1995] 3 SLR 201SingaporeCited for the scope of the High Court’s “trial”– and therefore its “original criminal”– jurisdiction is set out in s 15 of the SCJA.
Public Prosecutor v Muhari bin Mohd JaniMalaysian High CourtYes[1996] 3 MLJ 116MalaysiaCited in relation to the High Court’s powers of revision.
PP v Koon Seng Construction Pte LtdSingapore High CourtYes[1996] 1 SLR 573SingaporeCited in relation to the High Court’s powers of revision.
Chan Hiang Leng Colin v PPSingapore High CourtYes[1994] 3 SLR 662SingaporeCited in relation to the High Court’s powers of revision.
PP v ShaifudinSingapore High CourtYes[2005] SGHC 66SingaporeCited in relation to the High Court’s powers of revision.
Annie Besant v Advocate General of MadrasIndian Privy CouncilYesAIR 1919 Privy Council 31IndiaCited in relation to the distinction between powers of judicial review and the court’s newly-found power of revision.
In re Applications of Chong Fye Lee & Toong Hing Loong Tin Mining Co LtdMalaysian High CourtYes[1965] 1 MLJ 29MalaysiaCited in relation to the High Court’s statutory revisionary jurisdiction has completely superseded the scope of its erstwhile supervisory jurisdiction.
Tan Hock Chuan v Tan Tiong HwaSingapore High CourtYes[2002] 3 SLR 145SingaporeCited in relation to the High Court’s statutory revisionary jurisdiction has completely superseded the scope of its erstwhile supervisory jurisdiction.
State of Uttar Pradesh v Dr Vijay Anand MaharajSupreme Court of IndiaYes[1963] 1 SCR 1IndiaCited in relation to the system of revisionary jurisdiction that Singapore inherited from India did not include the power to issue prerogative writs.
Rex v Northumberland Compensation Appeal TribunalEnglish Court of AppealYes[1952] 1 KB 338England and WalesCited in relation to the inherent jurisdiction to control all inferior tribunals, not in an appellate capacity, but in a supervisory capacity.
Haron bin Mundir v Singapore Amateur Athletic AssociationSingapore High CourtYes[1992] 1 SLR 18SingaporeCited in relation to the inherent basis of the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction provides a credible explanation why there was no need for Parliament to enact any express legislative provision regulating the High Court’s powers of supervision.
Re Mohamed Saleem IsmailSingapore High CourtYes[1987] SLR 369SingaporeCited in relation to the inherent basis of the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction provides a credible explanation why there was no need for Parliament to enact any express legislative provision regulating the High Court’s powers of supervision.
Re Muhamad Ali bin HamidMalaysian High CourtYes[1999] 2 MLJ 703MalaysiaCited in relation to the differing procedural forms required to invoke the High Court’s supervisory and revisionary jurisdiction.
Heng Lee Handbags Co Pte Ltd v PPSingapore High CourtYes[1994] 2 SLR 760SingaporeCited in relation to applications for criminal revisions are generally filed by way of a petition.
Cigar Affair v PPSingapore High CourtYes[2005] 3 SLR 648SingaporeCited in relation to applications for criminal revisions are generally filed by way of a petition.
Tan Eng Chye v The Director of Prisons (No 2)Singapore High CourtYes[2004] 4 SLR 521SingaporeCited in relation to an application for an order of (the prerogative writ) of certiorari would not be granted where the appeal process was the appropriate mode of redress.
Yap Keng Ho v PPSingapore High CourtYes[2006] SGHC 201SingaporeCited in relation to the applicant had, in a manner not unlike that adopted by the present applicants, filed a criminal motion to the High Court seeking a declaration that his trial in the Subordinate Courts was a “mistrial”.
Chee Soon Juan v PPSingapore High CourtYes[2006] SGHC 202SingaporeCited in relation to one of the most important principles of fairness in a trial is that no judgment should be passed until the trial has been completed.
Koh Thian Huat v PPSingapore High CourtYes[2002] 3 SLR 28SingaporeCited in relation to the High Court must therefore jealously guard its revisionary jurisdiction from being abused by frivolous and unmeritorious applications.
Ang Poh Chuan v PPSingapore High CourtYes[1996] 1 SLR 326SingaporeCited in relation to the revisionary powers of the High Court conferred by both the SCJA and the CPC are to be exercised sparingly.
Ngian Chin Boon v PPSingapore High CourtYes[1999] 1 SLR 119SingaporeCited in relation to the revisionary powers of the High Court conferred by both the SCJA and the CPC are to be exercised sparingly.
Teo Hee Heng v PPSingapore High CourtYes[2000] 3 SLR 168SingaporeCited in relation to the revisionary powers of the High Court conferred by both the SCJA and the CPC are to be exercised sparingly.
Mohamed Hiraz Hassim v PPSingapore High CourtYes[2005] 1 SLR 622SingaporeCited in relation to the revisionary powers of the High Court conferred by both the SCJA and the CPC are to be exercised sparingly.
Salwant Singh s/o Amer Singh v PP (No 2)Singapore Court of AppealYes[2005] 1 SLR 632SingaporeCited in relation to the court can – and must – prevent the improper use of its process and machinery.
PP v TanggaahMalaysian High CourtYes[1972] 1 MLJ 207MalaysiaCited in relation to litigious parties who are found to have commenced duplicitous proceedings may find themselves (or, in appropriate cases, their counsel) the subject of sanctions, not least of which may be an order of costs.
PP v Nyu Tiong LamSingapore High CourtYes[1996] 1 SLR 273SingaporeCited in relation to in all cases where applications for revision have been allowed, there is little doubt that there was injustice, for example, because a plea of guilty was taken when it should not have been or, as recently, when a judge exceeded his powers.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Cap 184, 1997 Rev Ed) s 13B(1)(b)Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 34Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) s 27Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act s 29A(2)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 241Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Criminal Motion
  • Jurisdiction
  • Abuse of Process
  • Supervisory Jurisdiction
  • Revisionary Jurisdiction
  • Original Criminal Jurisdiction
  • Fair Trial
  • Legal Adequacy
  • Subordinate Courts
  • High Court
  • Court of Appeal

15.2 Keywords

  • Criminal Motion
  • Jurisdiction
  • Abuse of Process
  • Court of Appeal
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Criminal Procedure90
Administrative Law10
Property Law10

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure
  • Appeals
  • Jurisdiction