Huang Meizhe v Attorney-General: Review of Public Prosecutor's Decision on Sentencing Appeal
Huang Meizhe and Ng Bee Hion filed an originating summons in the High Court of Singapore, seeking a declaration that the Attorney-General acted illegally, irrationally, and with procedural impropriety by not appealing the 16-year imprisonment sentence given to Mdm Wu Yun Yun for culpable homicide. Tan Lee Meng J struck out the application, holding that the Attorney-General's prosecutorial discretion was not subject to judicial review in this case, as there was no breach of the Constitution or evidence of bad faith.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application struck out with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Attorney-General acted irrationally by not appealing a sentence. The court struck out the application, citing prosecutorial discretion.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Defendant | Government Agency | Application struck out | Won | Jeffrey Chan Wah Teck of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jay Lee of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Huang Meizhe | Plaintiff | Individual | Application struck out | Dismissed | |
| Ng Bee Hion | Plaintiff | Individual | Application struck out | Dismissed |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Jeffrey Chan Wah Teck | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jay Lee | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Spencer Gwee | Lee, Frois & Partners |
| Benjamin Aloysius Frois | Lee, Frois & Partners |
| Bala Albert | Lee, Frois & Partners |
4. Facts
- Mdm Huang is the widow of the deceased, who was killed by his sister-in-law, Mdm Wu.
- Mdm Ng is the deceased’s mother.
- Mdm Wu was sentenced to imprisonment for 16 years for culpable homicide.
- The plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the Public Prosecutor’s decision not to appeal against the sentence.
- The plaintiffs filed Originating Summons No 951 of 2010 to obtain a declaration that the Attorney-General acted illegally and/or irrationally.
- Mdm Wu was suffering from a major depressive disorder when she killed the deceased and injured Mdm Huang and Mdm Ng.
- The Deputy Public Prosecutor had argued before Kan J that a sentence of life imprisonment was appropriate, but no appeal was filed.
5. Formal Citations
- Huang Meizhe and another v Attorney-General, Originating Summons No 951 of 2010 (Summons No 4661 of 2010), [2011] SGHC 38
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mdm Wu came to Singapore. | |
| Mdm Wu hid a fruit knife in a box beneath the kitchen sink. | |
| Mdm Wu stabbed Mdm Huang and the deceased. | |
| The deceased was pronounced dead at Tan Tock Seng Hospital. | |
| Mdm Wu was arrested by the police. | |
| Mdm Wu was remanded at Changi Women’s Prison for psychiatric evaluation. | |
| Dr Fernandez submitted his psychiatric report. | |
| Mdm Wu pleaded guilty to charges concerning the death of the deceased and Mdm Huang’s injury. | |
| Trial of Mdm Wu resumed. | |
| Kan J sentenced Mdm Wu to imprisonment for 16 years. | |
| Mr Frois wrote to the AGC to explain why an appeal against the sentence should be filed. | |
| Mr Frois wrote to the AGC to explain why an appeal against the sentence should be filed. | |
| The AGC replied that an appeal against the sentence was not warranted. | |
| The plaintiffs’ lawyers wrote to the Minister for Law about the alleged unsatisfactory features in the trial of Mdm Wu. | |
| The AGC reiterated that the decision not to appeal against the sentence was made after careful consideration. | |
| The plaintiffs’ lawyers sent another letter to the AGC to reiterate their clients’ view on the matter. | |
| The AGC reiterated its position that no appeal will be lodged against the sentence. | |
| The plaintiffs filed the present application. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Prosecutorial Discretion
- Outcome: The court held that the Attorney-General has an unfettered discretion as to when and how he exercises his prosecutorial powers, subject to judicial review only in cases of unconstitutionality or bad faith.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2008] 2 SLR(R) 239
- Judicial Review
- Outcome: The court determined that the plaintiffs' application for judicial review of the Public Prosecutor's decision was bound to fail.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1948] 1 KB 223
- Locus Standi
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiffs did not have legal rights with respect to the trial of Mdm Wu that can be the subject matter of the declaration sought and therefore had no locus standi to apply for the declaration in question.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that the Attorney-General acted illegally and/or irrationally and/or with procedural impropriety in failing and/or refusing to appeal against the sentence.
9. Cause of Actions
- Judicial Review of Prosecutorial Discretion
10. Practice Areas
- Judicial Review
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gabriel Peter & Partners v Wee Chong Jin | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the power to strike out an action should only be exercised in plain and obvious cases where the plaintiff’s case is wholly devoid of merit. |
| Bandung Shipping Pte Ltd v Keppel TatLee Bank Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 1 SLR(R) 295 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a hopeless claim should be struck out to prevent the defendant from expending time and money defending a case with no merit. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis | N/A | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 239 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the prosecutorial function is separate from the judicial function and that the Attorney-General has an unfettered discretion as to when and how he exercises his prosecutorial powers, subject to judicial review only in cases of unconstitutionality or bad faith. |
| Teh Cheng Poh v PP | N/A | Yes | [1979] 1 MLJ 50 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that equality before the law requires unbiased consideration by the prosecuting authority and that decisions whether or not to prosecute should not be dictated by irrelevant considerations. |
| Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation | N/A | Yes | [1948] 1 KB 223 | England and Wales | Cited in relation to the ground that the decision not to appeal was irrational in the Wednesbury sense. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 18 r 19 (1) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 304(a) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 308 | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Art 93 | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Art 35(8) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 336(1) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Art 12 | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 332, 2007 Rev Ed) s 44 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Prosecutorial discretion
- Judicial review
- Irrationality
- Public Prosecutor
- Originating summons
- Separation of powers
- Locus standi
15.2 Keywords
- prosecutorial discretion
- judicial review
- attorney-general
- criminal procedure
- singapore
- high court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure | 80 |
| Criminal Law | 70 |
| Criminal Revision | 60 |
| Prosecutorial Discretion | 60 |
| Sentencing | 50 |
| Administrative Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Constitutional Law
- Judicial Review
- Prosecutorial Discretion