Tan Lai Kiat v PP: Criminal Revision for Illegal Lottery Scheme Sentence
Tan Lai Kiat filed a criminal revision against his sentence for two charges under the Common Gaming Houses Act. The High Court, presided over by V K Rajah JA, allowed the petition, varying the original sentences due to a miscalculation of the outstanding fine amount. The court quashed the warrant of arrest and reduced the aggregate fine.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Petition Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Tan Lai Kiat's criminal revision allowed, varying sentences for illegal lottery scheme charges due to miscalculation of outstanding fine amount.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Petition Allowed | Lost | Gillian Koh Tan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jaswant Singh of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lee Jwee Nguan of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Lai Kiat | Petitioner | Individual | Petition Allowed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Gillian Koh Tan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jaswant Singh | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lee Jwee Nguan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Rajan s/o Sankaran Nair | Rajan Nair & Partners |
4. Facts
- Petitioner was arrested for involvement in an illegal lottery scheme in 1998.
- Petitioner pleaded guilty to two charges under the Common Gaming Houses Act.
- Petitioner was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment and a $70,000 fine for each charge.
- A miscalculation occurred regarding the outstanding fine amount after the Petitioner served part of his default imprisonment.
- An Order to Release a Prisoner was issued with incorrect information about the rebate given.
- The Petitioner was released from prison but later arrested again due to an outstanding fine balance.
- The Subordinate Courts sent an Instalment Letter requesting payment of the balance, but there was no court order for such payment.
5. Formal Citations
- Tan Lai Kiat v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Revision No 2 of 2010, [2010] SGHC 145
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Raid conducted on property in Tampines for illegal gambling activities; Petitioner arrested. | |
| Petitioner pleaded guilty to and was convicted of MAC 11701/1998 and MAC 11702/1998. | |
| Petitioner commenced serving the 9-month imprisonment sentence. | |
| Petitioner completed serving the 9-month imprisonment sentence. | |
| Petitioner commenced serving his 12-month default imprisonment sentence. | |
| Mdm Foo made a payment of $44,306. | |
| Order to Release a Prisoner issued. | |
| Petitioner released from prison. | |
| Subordinate Courts sent the Instalment Letter to the Petitioner. | |
| Warrant of Arrest issued against the Petitioner. | |
| Warrant of Arrest activated. | |
| Petitioner arrested pursuant to the Warrant of Arrest. | |
| High Court heard the petition and allowed it. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Criminal Revision
- Outcome: The High Court exercised its revisionary power due to serious injustice caused by administrative errors.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Serious injustice
- Administrative error
- Related Cases:
- [1995] 3 SLR(R) 929
- [2008] 3 SLR(R) 383
- Default Imprisonment
- Outcome: The court clarified the application of remission to default imprisonment sentences and addressed the miscalculation of the outstanding fine.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Remission of sentence
- Calculation of outstanding fine
8. Remedies Sought
- Quashing of Warrant of Arrest
- Reduction or variation of fine and default imprisonment sentence
- Refund of payment made
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of Common Gaming Houses Act
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Criminal Revision
11. Industries
- Gambling
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ang Poh Chuan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 929 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the High Court's revisionary power is discretionary and exercised only when there is serious injustice. |
| Yunani bin Abdul Hamid v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 383 | Singapore | Cited to reiterate the principle that the High Court's revisionary jurisdiction is a paternal or supervisory jurisdiction to right wrongs and prevent serious injustice. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Common Gaming Houses Act (Cap 49, 1985 Rev Ed) s 5(a) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 34 | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 23 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 266–270 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 256 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 224(e) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal Revision
- Common Gaming Houses Act
- Default Imprisonment
- Remission
- Warrant of Arrest
- Outstanding Sum
- Instalment Letter
- Order to Release a Prisoner
- Administrative Error
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Revision
- Illegal Lottery
- Common Gaming Houses Act
- Default Imprisonment
- Fine
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Revision | 90 |
| Criminal Law | 80 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Sentencing | 60 |
| Chancery and Equity | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Gaming Law
- Sentencing