Public Prosecutor v Ng Guan Hup: Withdrawal of Charge and Discharge Application
In Public Prosecutor v Ng Guan Hup, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by the prosecution against the District Court's refusal to grant a discharge not amounting to acquittal to Ng Guan Hup, who had pleaded guilty to mischief under s 425 of the Penal Code for administering a banned substance to racehorses. The prosecution sought the discharge based on new evidence casting doubt on Ng's guilt. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the power of the prosecution under s 184(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code includes the pronouncement of sentence where there is a conviction and therefore the power of the prosecution under this provision may be exercised any time before the accused person is sentenced.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment reserved.
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Prosecution applied for a discharge not amounting to acquittal after the Defendant pleaded guilty to mischief. The court allowed the appeal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Appellant | Government Agency | Appeal Allowed | Won | Lau Wing Yum of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lee Jwee Nguan of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ng Guan Hup | Respondent | Individual | Discharge not amounting to an acquittal | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lau Wing Yum | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lee Jwee Nguan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Raymond Lim | Harold Seet & Indra Raj |
| Harold Seet | Harold Seet & Indra Raj |
4. Facts
- The respondent was charged with mischief under s 425 of the Penal Code for administering a drug to racehorses.
- The respondent pleaded guilty to the charge and admitted to the statement of facts.
- The district judge convicted the respondent and adjourned the trial for sentencing.
- The prosecution uncovered fresh evidence casting doubt on the truthfulness of the respondent’s admissions and plea of guilt.
- The prosecution applied under s 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the respondent to be given a discharge not amounting to an acquittal.
- The district judge refused the application.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Ng Guan Hup, MA 132/2008, [2009] SGHC 170
- Public Prosecutor v Ng Guan Hup, , [2008] SGDC 168
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Respondent administered a drug to racehorses. | |
| Racehorses underperformed during a race. | |
| Malayan Racing Association letter indicated racehorses tested positive for a banned substance. | |
| Respondent detained in the vicinity of the Singapore Turf Club. | |
| Respondent pleaded guilty to the charge. | |
| Prosecution informed the court that fresh evidence had been uncovered. | |
| Prosecution applied for the respondent to be given a discharge not amounting to an acquittal. | |
| District Judge's decision. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Withdrawal of Charge
- Outcome: The court held that the Public Prosecutor may exercise discretion not to further prosecute the accused even after a guilty plea but before sentencing.
- Category: Procedural
- Definition of Judgment
- Outcome: The court held that 'judgment' in s 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code includes the pronouncement of sentence.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Discharge not amounting to an acquittal
9. Cause of Actions
- Mischief
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
11. Industries
- Gambling
- Sports
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arjan Singh v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR 271 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court has no discretion when the Public Prosecutor informs the court that he will not further prosecute an accused. |
| Marzuki Bin Mokhtar v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1981] 2 MLJ 155 | Malaysia | Cited for the definition of 'judgment' as a final order in a trial terminating in the conviction or acquittal of the accused, but the court found it unhelpful. |
| Lim Teck Leng Roland v PP | Unknown | Yes | [2001] 4 SLR 61 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of 'judgment' in the context of s 217 of the CPC, but the court was not persuaded that the district judge's interpretation was inevitable based on this decision. |
| Wong Hong Toy v PP | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 396 | Singapore | Cited to demonstrate that the court interpreted the word 'judgment' in s 217 of the CPC to include 'sentence'. |
| PP v Oh Hu Sung | Unknown | Yes | [2003] 4 SLR 541 | Singapore | Cited regarding the interpretation of s 217 of the CPC and whether a court is functus officio after passing sentence, but the court disagreed with the district judge's reliance on this case. |
| Ganesun s/o Kannan v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR 560 | Singapore | Cited to establish the principle that an accused’s plea of guilt can be retracted (in the appropriate circumstances) so long as the trial court has not passed sentence. |
| Cheng Siah Johnson v PP | Unknown | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR 481 | Singapore | Cited to establish the principle that an accused’s plea of guilt can be retracted (in the appropriate circumstances) so long as the trial court has not passed sentence. |
| Koh Thian Huat v PP | Unknown | Yes | [2002] 3 SLR 28 | Singapore | Cited to establish the principle that an accused’s plea of guilt can be retracted (in the appropriate circumstances) so long as the trial court has not passed sentence. |
| PP v Low Kok Heng | Unknown | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR 183 | Singapore | Cited for the history and evolution of the strict construction rule in interpreting penal statutes. |
| Forward Food Management v PP | Unknown | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR 40 | Singapore | Cited for the modern local position on the construction of penal statutes, stating that the strict construction rule is only applied to ambiguous statutory provisions as a tool of last resort. |
| K Abdul Rasheed and Another v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1984-1985] SLR 561 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a discharge shall not amount to an acquittal unless there are sufficient reasons to find otherwise. |
| Goh Cheng Chuan v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1990] SLR 671 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court has an unfettered discretion to direct, in appropriate circumstances, that the discharge shall amount to an acquittal. |
| Ranjit Kaur d/o Awthar Singh v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 836 | Singapore | Cited for affirming the principles in K Abdul Rasheed and Goh Cheng Chuan. |
| TS Video and Laser Pte Ltd v Lim Chee Yong and another appeal | Unknown | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR 68 | Singapore | Cited for affirming the principles in K Abdul Rasheed and Goh Cheng Chuan. |
| Loh Siang Piow v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 384 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court should be kept informed of all relevant matters, particularly the likelihood of future prosecution of the accused of the charge. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 425 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 426 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 184 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Discharge not amounting to acquittal
- Mischief
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Penal Code
- Judgment
- Sentence
- Public Prosecutor
- Withdrawal of charge
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
- Mischief
- Discharge
- Acquittal
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Penal Code
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Law | 80 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Sentencing | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing