Yap Keng Ho v PP: Assembly & Procession Without Permit Near Parliament House
Yap Keng Ho, Chee Soon Juan, Chee Siok Chin, John Tan Liang Joo, Ghandi s/o Karuppiah Ambalam, Seelan s/o Palay, Chong Kai Xiong, Muhammad Shafi’ie Syahmi Bin Sariman, Go Hui Leng, and Mohamed Jufrie Bin Mahmood appealed to the High Court of Singapore against their conviction and sentence by a District Judge for participating in an assembly and procession without a permit under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act. The High Court, presided over by Woo Bih Li J, dismissed their appeals, upholding the original conviction and sentence. The court found that the appellants knowingly participated in an illegal assembly and procession near Parliament House.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appellants were convicted of participating in an illegal assembly and procession near Parliament House. The High Court dismissed their appeals against conviction and sentence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Isaac Tan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Thiagesh Sukumaran of Attorney-General’s Chambers John Lu Zhuoren of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chee Soon Juan | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Chee Siok Chin | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Seelan s/o Palay | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Chong Kai Xiong | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Yap Keng Ho | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Ghandi s/o Karuppiah Ambalam | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| John Tan Liang Joo | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Muhammad Shafi’ie Syahmi Bin Sariman | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Go Hui Leng | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Mohamed Jufrie Bin Mahmood | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Isaac Tan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Thiagesh Sukumaran | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| John Lu Zhuoren | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The appellants participated in an assembly and procession near Parliament House on 15 March 2008.
- The Singapore Democratic Party's application for a permit to hold the assembly was rejected by the police.
- The appellants proceeded with the assembly and procession despite the lack of a permit.
- The assembly and procession took place within an area prohibited by the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance)(Prohibition of Assemblies and Processions – Parliament and Supreme Court) Order.
- The appellants were charged under Section 5(4)(b) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act.
- The appellants argued that the rejection of the permit application was unconstitutional.
- The appellants claimed that the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance)(Prohibition of Assemblies and Processions – Parliament and Supreme Court) Order was erroneous and invalid.
5. Formal Citations
- Yap Keng Ho and others v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate's Appeals Nos 101-108 and 110-111 of 2010, [2011] SGHC 39
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Dr Chee made an application on behalf of the Singapore Democratic Party for a police permit to hold an assembly. | |
| The police informed Dr Chee that the application was unsuccessful. | |
| Appellants participated in an assembly and procession without a permit. | |
| Hearing of the appeals. | |
| Go Hui Leng applied to proceed with her appeal and adopt the submissions of the other appellants. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Unlawful Assembly
- Outcome: The court upheld the conviction for participating in an unlawful assembly.
- Category: Substantive
- Freedom of Assembly
- Outcome: The court held that the restrictions on freedom of assembly were constitutional.
- Category: Constitutional
- Validity of Permit Rejection
- Outcome: The court found that the validity of the permit rejection was irrelevant to the conviction for unlawful assembly.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of Section 5(4)(b) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v PP and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [1989] 2 SLR(R) 419 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court will not question the merits of an exercise of discretion and cannot substitute its own view. |
| Chan Hiang Leng Colin & Ors v PP | High Court | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 209 | Singapore | Cited regarding the jurisdiction of a criminal court to consider the validity of subsidiary legislation. |
| Bugg v Director of Public Prosecutions | Unknown | Yes | [1993] 2 WLR 628 | England | Cited regarding the distinction between substantive and procedural invalidity of subsidiary legislation. |
| Boddington v British Transport Police | House of Lords | Yes | [1998] 2 WLR 639 | England | Cited for the principle that a defendant can challenge the validity of a byelaw in any court. |
| R (on the application of Gillan) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis | English Divisional Court | Yes | [2003] Po LR 397 | England | Cited for the proposition that courts have the power to examine the way in which public servants use discretionary powers. |
| Ng Chye Huay v PP | Unknown | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 157 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is not necessary for every member of an assembly to be engaged in the exact same activities as long as they share the common object. |
| Chee Siok Chin and others v Minister for Home Affairs and another | Unknown | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 582 | Singapore | Cited regarding the wide discretionary power of Parliament to impose restrictions on the rights of freedom of speech and expression and assembly. |
| PP v Chee Soon Juan and others | District Court | Yes | [2010] SGDC 259 | Singapore | The District Judge’s decision is summarized and relied upon for the facts of the case. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Cap 184, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Assembly
- Procession
- Permit
- Public Order
- Freedom of Assembly
- Constitutionality
- Gazetted Area
- Parliament House
15.2 Keywords
- assembly
- procession
- permit
- public order
- Singapore
- High Court
- criminal law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Law | 70 |
| Public Order Offences | 60 |
| Constitutional Law | 40 |
| Administrative Law | 30 |
| Civil Litigation | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Constitutional Law
- Public Order