Chee Soon Juan v PP: Freedom of Speech & Public Entertainment Licence
In Chee Soon Juan and another v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard appeals against convictions for providing public entertainment without a license under the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act. The appellants, Chee Soon Juan and Yap Keng Ho, argued that the Act violated their right to freedom of speech and that they were victims of discriminatory enforcement. The High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the Act was constitutional and that the appellants' actions constituted addresses requiring a license.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeals against both convictions and sentences are dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court upholds convictions for providing public entertainment without a license, affirming that freedom of speech is not absolute.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Han Ming Kuang of Attorney-General’s Chambers John Lu Zhuoren of Attorney-General’s Chambers Sellakumaran Sellamuthoo of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chee Soon Juan | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Yap Keng Ho | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Steven Chong | Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Han Ming Kuang | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| John Lu Zhuoren | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sellakumaran Sellamuthoo | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chia Ti Lik @ Xie ZhiLi | Chia Ngee Thuang & Co |
4. Facts
- The appellants were convicted of providing public entertainment without a license.
- The offences were committed on four different occasions at separate locations.
- The appellants did not apply for a license to make an address.
- The appellants argued that the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act violated their right to freedom of speech.
- The appellants claimed discriminatory enforcement of the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act.
- The appellants contended that they were only making a sales pitch, not an address.
5. Formal Citations
- Chee Soon Juan and another v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate's Appeals Nos 133 & 134 of 2008; 279 & 273 of 2009; 233 & 234 of 2010, [2011] SGHC 17
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Offence committed by providing public entertainment without a license | |
| Offence committed by providing public entertainment without a license | |
| Offence committed by providing public entertainment without a license | |
| Offence committed by providing public entertainment without a license | |
| Trial in respect of the offences committed on 8 April 2006 heard by District Judge Jasvender Kaur | |
| Trial in respect of the offences committed on 16 November 2005 and 12 April 2006 heard by District Judge Thian Yee Sze | |
| Trial in respect of the offences committed on 15 April 2006 heard by District Judge Jill Tan | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Freedom of Speech
- Outcome: The court held that the right to freedom of speech is not absolute and is subject to restrictions in the interest of public order.
- Category: Constitutional
- Related Cases:
- [1989] 2 SLR(R) 419
- [2003] 2 SLR(R) 445
- Discriminatory Enforcement
- Outcome: The court found no evidence of discriminatory enforcement of the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act.
- Category: Constitutional
- Definition of Address
- Outcome: The court held that the appellants' speeches went beyond a mere sales pitch and constituted an address within the meaning of the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1989] 2 SLR(R) 419
- [2003] 2 SLR(R) 445
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of Public Entertainments and Meetings Act s 19(1)(a)
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Constitutional Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [1989] 2 SLR(R) 419 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that freedom of speech under Art 14 of the Constitution is not an absolute right and that the enactment of the PEMA was permitted under Art 14(2)(a) of the Constitution. |
| Chee Soon Juan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR(R) 445 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that freedom of speech under Art 14 of the Constitution is not an absolute right and that the enactment of the PEMA was permitted under Art 14(2)(a) of the Constitution. |
| Vancouver (City) v Zhang | Court of Appeal of British Columbia | Yes | [2010] BCCA 450 | Canada | Cited by the appellant to challenge the constitutionality of PEMA, but distinguished by the court due to differences between the Canadian Charter and the Singapore Constitution. |
| R v Oakes | Supreme Court of Canada | Yes | [1986] 1 SCR 103 | Canada | Cited to explain the 'minimal impairment requirement' under the Canadian Charter, which is different from the restrictions under the Singapore Constitution. |
| Boddington v British Transport Police | House of Lords | Yes | [1992] 2 AC 143 | United Kingdom | Cited by the appellant to support the position that collateral challenges are permitted in criminal proceedings, but distinguished by the court. |
| Chan Hiang Leng Colin and others v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 209 | Singapore | Cited to highlight the differences between the English and local positions regarding constitutional challenges in subordinate court proceedings. |
| Tan Khee Wan Iris v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR(R) 723 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the offence of providing public entertainment without a license under the PEMA is one of strict liability. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chee Soon Juan & another | District Court | Yes | [2010] SGDC 298 | Singapore | Cited for the District Judge's observation that Chee did not apply for a public entertainment license because he considered it unnecessary. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chee Soon Juan & anor | District Court | Yes | [2008] SGDC 131 | Singapore | Cited for District Judge Kaur’s finding that Dr Chee had made an address to the public is supported by the transcripts. |
| Lim Ah Poh v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 192 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will only disturb findings of fact made by the trial judge when they are clearly against the weight of the evidence or plainly wrong. |
| Johari bin Kanadi and another v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 422 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a subordinate court has the discretion whether or not to stay proceedings when an application is made before it under s 56A of the Subordinate Courts Act. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (Cap 257, 2001 Rev Ed) s 19(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (Cap 257, 2001 Rev Ed) s 3 | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Art 14 | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Art 12 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 79 | Singapore |
| Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 1999 Rev Ed) s 56A | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (No. 15 of 2010) s 395 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Public entertainment
- Freedom of speech
- Public order
- Discriminatory enforcement
- Address
- Licensing policy
- Constitution
- Political speech
15.2 Keywords
- Public Entertainment
- Freedom of Speech
- Singapore
- License
- Constitution
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Freedom of speech | 80 |
| Constitutional Law | 75 |
| Public Order | 65 |
| Administrative Law | 60 |
| Criminal Law | 50 |
| Evidence Law | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Constitutional Law
- Criminal Law
- Freedom of Speech
- Public Order