Azman Bin Jamaludin v PP: Mandatory Order & Trial Judge's Power to Summon Witness
In Azman Bin Jamaludin v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore dismissed Azman Bin Jamaludin's application for a Mandatory Order, sought against a District Judge's decision to call a witness after the defense had closed its case. The High Court held that the District Judge's order was interlocutory and the application was frivolous, as the questions of law presented were either settled or too broad to provide a specific answer.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court dismissed Azman's application for a Mandatory Order, holding that the District Judge's order to summon a witness was interlocutory and the application was frivolous.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Azman Bin Jamaludin | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | Joseph Liow Wang Wu |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Application Dismissed | Won | G Kannan, Ng Yiwen |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Sek Keong | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Joseph Liow Wang Wu | Straits Law Practice LLC |
| G Kannan | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Ng Yiwen | Attorney-General's Chambers |
4. Facts
- The Applicant was charged with unlawful drug consumption and failing to provide a urine sample.
- The Prosecution sought to rely on entries in a station diary and an inculpatory statement.
- The Applicant testified that he was requested to give his urine sample only once when he was unable to urinate.
- A defence witness testified that the Applicant's Glasgow Coma Score was abnormal, possibly affecting his ability to provide a urine sample.
- The District Judge directed that Cpl Hakim be called as a witness after both parties had closed their cases.
- The Applicant applied for the DJ to refer three questions to the High Court, which the DJ rejected.
5. Formal Citations
- Azman Bin Jamaludin v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 48 of 2011, [2011] SGHC 250
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant failed to provide a urine sample as required by a police officer. | |
| Closing submissions were made by the Defence and the Prosecution. | |
| Trial resumed; Defence counsel objected to Cpl Hakim being called as a witness. | |
| Applicant made an application under s 263(1) of the CPC for the DJ to refer the 3 Questions to the High Court. | |
| Affidavit of Joseph Liow Wang Wu, counsel for the Applicant, filed. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Trial Judge's Power to Summon Witness
- Outcome: The High Court held that the trial judge's discretion to summon a witness is not unfettered but must be exercised cautiously. The ex improviso rule does not limit the operation of s 399 of the CPC.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Discretion of trial judge
- Admissibility of evidence
- Ex improviso rule
- Applicability of Section 263 of the Criminal Procedure Code
- Outcome: The High Court held that s 263 of the CPC applies only to final orders and not to interlocutory orders. The application was deemed frivolous.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Finality of orders
- Interlocutory orders
- Frivolous applications
8. Remedies Sought
- Mandatory Order
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The King v Dora Harris | English Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1927] 2 KB 587 | England | Cited regarding the ex improviso rule for calling additional witnesses after the defense closes its case. |
| Public Prosecutor v Bridges Christopher | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 467 | Singapore | Cited regarding the calling of a new witness after the close of the Defence’s case could only be done if the matter arose ex improviso. |
| Jacob v Public Prosecutor | High Court of the Federation of Malaya | Yes | [1948–1949] Supp MLJ 20 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that the court may exercise its power to call a witness after the close of the defence if the further evidence appears essential to the just determination of the case. |
| R v McMahon | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1933] 24 Cr App R 95 | England | Cited to establish the ex improviso rule in England. |
| Yap Fook Yew and another v Public Prosecutor | High Court of the Federation of Malaya | Yes | [1949] Supp MLJ 3 | Malaysia | Cited as an example of a case where the court's discretion to call a witness was subject to well-known legal principles. |
| Kee Seng Nee v Rex | High Court of the Federation of Malaya | Yes | [1949] MLJ 210 | Malaysia | Cited as an example of a case where the court called on its own motion witnesses during various phases of the trial process. |
| Balfour v Public Prosecutor | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1949] Supp MLJ 8 | Malaysia | Cited as an example of a case where the court approved R v Day and expressed the opinion that the calling by the trial judge in that case of a witness after the close of the Defence’s case, although not illegal, was a wrong exercise of discretion, and that the evidence of that witness ought to be excluded. |
| Rex v Bakar bin Sahat | High Court of the Federation of Malaya | Yes | [1951] MLJ 202 | Malaysia | Cited as an example of a case where the court threw doubt on the correctness of Jacob on the ground that R v Day had not been cited in that case. |
| Ramasamy v Regina | High Court of the Federation of Malaya | Yes | [1955] MLJ 95 | Malaysia | Cited as an example of a case where the court reiterated the position that he took in his previous decisions. |
| Loke Poh Siang v Public Prosecutor | High Court of the Federation of Malaya | Yes | [1957] MLJ 107 | Malaysia | Cited as an example of a case where the court called on its own motion witnesses during various phases of the trial process. |
| Re Adam Aman; Hoesin bin Ghani v Public Prosecutor | High Court of the Federation of Malaya | Yes | [1958] MLJ 229 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that the powers conferred upon the Court under this section are wider than the corresponding powers in English law. |
| Public Prosecutor v Abdul Hamid | High Court of the Federation of Malaya | Yes | [1969] 1 MLJ 53 | Malaysia | Cited as an example of a case where the court called on its own motion witnesses during various phases of the trial process. |
| Jamatraj Kewalji Govani v State of Maharashtra | Supreme Court of India | Yes | AIR 1968 SC 178 | India | Cited for the principle that Section 540 is intended to be wide as the repeated use of the word ‘any’ throughout its length clearly indicates. |
| Ramli bin Kechik v Public Prosecutor | Supreme Court of Malaysia | Yes | [1986] 2 MLJ 33 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that the section is intended to enable the court to get at the truth and to come to a proper conclusion in the matter under inquiry or trial. |
| Public Prosecutor v Phon Nam | High Court of Malaysia | Yes | [1988] 3 MLJ 415 | Malaysia | Cited as an example of a case where the court applied or approved the exercise of the power under s 399 of the CPC (or s 425 of the FM CPC, as the case may be) at various phases of a criminal trial. |
| Public Prosecutor v Abdul Rahim bin Abdul Satar | High Court of Malaysia | Yes | [1990] 3 MLJ 188 | Malaysia | Cited as an example of a case where the court applied or approved the exercise of the power under s 399 of the CPC (or s 425 of the FM CPC, as the case may be) at various phases of a criminal trial. |
| Chee Wee Tiong and another v Public Prosecutor | High Court of Singapore | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR(R) 1046 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where the court applied or approved the exercise of the power under s 399 of the CPC (or s 425 of the FM CPC, as the case may be) at various phases of a criminal trial. |
| Mohammad Ali bin Mohd Noor v Public Prosecutor | High Court of Singapore | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 692 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where the court applied or approved the exercise of the power under s 399 of the CPC (or s 425 of the FM CPC, as the case may be) at various phases of a criminal trial. |
| Jusri bin Mohamed Hussain v Public Prosecutor | High Court of Singapore | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 706 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where the court applied or approved the exercise of the power under s 399 of the CPC (or s 425 of the FM CPC, as the case may be) at various phases of a criminal trial. |
| Sim Cheng Hui and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR(R) 670 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where the court applied or approved the exercise of the power under s 399 of the CPC (or s 425 of the FM CPC, as the case may be) at various phases of a criminal trial. |
| Osman bin Ali v Public Prosecutor | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1971–1973] SLR(R) 503 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where the court applied or approved the exercise of the power under s 399 of the CPC (or s 425 of the FM CPC, as the case may be) at various phases of a criminal trial. |
| Bridges Christopher v Public Prosecutor | High Court of Singapore | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR(R) 156 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where the court applied or approved the exercise of the power under s 399 of the CPC (or s 425 of the FM CPC, as the case may be) at various phases of a criminal trial. |
| Public Prosecutor v Bridges Christopher | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR(R) 681 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where the court applied or approved the exercise of the power under s 399 of the CPC (or s 425 of the FM CPC, as the case may be) at various phases of a criminal trial. |
| Zainal bin Kuning and others v Chan Sin Mian Michael and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 858 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where the court applied or approved the exercise of the power under s 399 of the CPC (or s 425 of the FM CPC, as the case may be) at various phases of a criminal trial. |
| Public Prosecutor v Wee Eh Tiang | High Court of the Federation of Malaya | Yes | [1956] MLJ 120 | Malaysia | Cited as an example of a case where the court applied or approved the exercise of the power under s 399 of the CPC (or s 425 of the FM CPC, as the case may be) at various phases of a criminal trial. |
| Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh and another v State of Gujarat and others | Supreme Court of India | Yes | [2004] 4 SCC 158 | India | Cited as an example of a case where the court applied or approved the exercise of the power under s 399 of the CPC (or s 425 of the FM CPC, as the case may be) at various phases of a criminal trial. |
| Public Prosecutor v Knight Glenn Jeyasingam | High Court of Singapore | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 1165 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where the court applied or approved the exercise of the power under s 399 of the CPC (or s 425 of the FM CPC, as the case may be) at various phases of a criminal trial. |
| Ng Chye Huay and another v Public Prosecutor | High Court of Singapore | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 157 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where the court applied or approved the exercise of the power under s 399 of the CPC (or s 425 of the FM CPC, as the case may be) at various phases of a criminal trial. |
| Yap Keng Ho v Public Prosecutor | High Court of Singapore | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 259 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where the court applied or approved the exercise of the power under s 399 of the CPC (or s 425 of the FM CPC, as the case may be) at various phases of a criminal trial. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ng Guan Hup | High Court of Singapore | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 314 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where the court applied or approved the exercise of the power under s 399 of the CPC (or s 425 of the FM CPC, as the case may be) at various phases of a criminal trial. |
| R v Kansal | House of Lords | Yes | [2002] 2 AC 69 | United Kingdom | Cited as an example of a case where the court applied or approved the exercise of the power under s 399 of the CPC (or s 425 of the FM CPC, as the case may be) at various phases of a criminal trial. |
| Knight Glenn Jeyasingam v Public Prosecutor | High Court of Singapore | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 196 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where the court applied or approved the exercise of the power under s 399 of the CPC (or s 425 of the FM CPC, as the case may be) at various phases of a criminal trial. |
| Maleb bin Su v Public Prosecutor | High Court of Malaysia | Yes | [1984] 1 MLJ 311 | Malaysia | Cited as an example of a case where the court applied or approved the exercise of the power under s 399 of the CPC (or s 425 of the FM CPC, as the case may be) at various phases of a criminal trial. |
| Public Prosecutor v Hoo Chang Chwen | High Court of Malaysia | Yes | [1962] MLJ 284 | Malaysia | Cited as an example of a case where the court applied or approved the exercise of the power under s 399 of the CPC (or s 425 of the FM CPC, as the case may be) at various phases of a criminal trial. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 263 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 399 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 8(b) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33A | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 31(2) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Act No 15 of 2010) s 283 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Act No 15 of 2010) s 397 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 21, 1936) s 317 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 21, 1936) s 318 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 132, 1955) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (FMS Cap 6, 1927) s 425 | Malaysia |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Act 593) s 425 | Malaysia |
| Indian Code of Criminal Procedure (Act No V of 1898) s 540 | India |
| Indian Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Act No 2 of 1974) s 311 | India |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 60 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Act No 15 of 2010) s 423 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 266(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Mandatory Order
- Criminal Procedure Code
- District Judge
- Special Case
- Ex improviso
- Glasgow Coma Score
- Inculpatory Statement
- Rebuttal Evidence
- Interlocutory Order
- Frivolous Application
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Procedure
- Mandatory Order
- Summon Witness
- Interlocutory Order
- Frivolous Application
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Evidence
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Evidence Law