Chee Soon Juan v PP: Public Assembly, Permit Requirement, Miscellaneous Offences Act
The Singapore High Court heard an appeal by Chee Soon Juan, Chee Siok Chin, Tan Liang Joo, John, Seelan s/o Palay, Chong Kai Xiong, and Yap Keng Ho against their conviction and sentence by the District Judge for participating in an assembly without a permit, an offence under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act. The High Court dismissed the appeal for five of the appellants, upholding their conviction and sentence. However, the court allowed the appeal for Mr. Yap, setting aside his conviction and sentence, finding that the prosecution had not proven his participation in the assembly beyond a reasonable doubt.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed for five appellants; appeal allowed for one appellant.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court judgment regarding conviction for participating in an illegal assembly. The court dismissed the appeal for five appellants, but allowed the appeal for one.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Partial Judgment | Partial | Sellakumaran Sellamuthoo of Attorney-General Chambers Kwek Chin Yong of Attorney-General Chambers Ravneet Kaur of Attorney-General Chambers |
| Tan Liang Joo John | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| 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 Allowed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Quentin Loh | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Sellakumaran Sellamuthoo | Attorney-General Chambers |
| Kwek Chin Yong | Attorney-General Chambers |
| Ravneet Kaur | Attorney-General Chambers |
4. Facts
- Six individuals were charged with participating in an assembly without a permit on 9 August 2008.
- The assembly was intended to publicise the 'Tak Boleh Tahan' campaign organized by the Singapore Democratic Party.
- The assembly took place at the walkway in front of Block 190 Toa Payoh Lorong 6, a public place.
- The appellants (except Mr. Yap) were distributing flyers and selling T-shirts related to the TBT campaign.
- No permit was sought or granted for the assembly.
- The police had previously stated that a similar event on 1 May 2008 did not constitute an unlawful assembly.
- Mr. Yap was not a member of the SDP and was not wearing a red TBT t-shirt.
5. Formal Citations
- Chee Soon Juan and others v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate's Appeals Nos 373, 374, 375, 378 and 380 of 2010, [2012] SGHC 109
- Public Prosecutor v Chee Soon Juan and 8 Ors, , [2011] SGDC 13
- Public Prosecutor v You Xin and Others, , [2007] SGDC 79
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Assembly held by the Singapore Democratic Party to publicise the 'Tak Boleh Tahan' campaign. | |
| Appellants filed individual notices of appeal. | |
| Judgment reserved by the High Court. |
7. Legal Issues
- Illegal Assembly
- Outcome: The court upheld the conviction of five appellants for participating in an illegal assembly, but overturned the conviction of one appellant due to insufficient evidence of participation.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Participation in assembly
- Requirement of permit
- Knowledge of lack of permit
- Mens Rea
- Outcome: The court held that a mistake of law is not a valid defense and that the appellants ought reasonably to have known that the assembly was held without a permit.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Knowledge of lack of permit
- Reasonable belief regarding permit requirement
- Mistake of law
- Interpretation of Statutes
- Outcome: The court applied the principles of statutory interpretation to determine the meaning of Rule 5 and whether it included an additional mens rea element.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Literal interpretation
- Purposive interpretation
- Strict construction rule
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of Rule 5 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance)(Assemblies and Processions) Rules
- Violation of Section 5(1) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Public Assemblies
- Freedom of Speech
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quak Siew Hock David v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 807 | Singapore | Cited to define participation in the context of common intention liability under section 34 of the Penal Code. |
| You Xin v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Unknown | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 17 | Singapore | Discussed in relation to appeals against conviction and sentence under Rule 5 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance)(Assemblies and Processions) Rules. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chong Kai Xiong and others | Unknown | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 355 | Singapore | Discussed in relation to the interpretation of Rule 5 and whether a permit is required for an assembly or procession. |
| Chee Soon Juan and others v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 50 | Singapore | Discussed in relation to the interpretation of Rule 5 and whether the appellants ought reasonably to have known that a permit was required for their activity. |
| Comfort Management Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR(R) 67 | Singapore | Cited for the proper approach to construing a penal provision. |
| Forward Food Management Pte Ltd and another v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 443 | Singapore | Cited for the proper approach to construing a penal provision. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lee Soon Lee Vincent | Unknown | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 84 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of the phrase 'shall be liable'. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis | Unknown | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 239 | Singapore | Cited in relation to the abuse of process doctrine in Singapore. |
| Lee Chez Kee v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 447 | Singapore | Cited to define participation in the context of section 34 of the Penal Code. |
| Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely County Council of Rust | Unknown | Yes | [1972] 2 QB 426 | England | Cited to illustrate that a mandatory order cannot be imposed on a public body if it is allowed to create its own exceptions outside the law laid down by Parliament. |
| Brook v Ashton | Unknown | Yes | [1974] Crim LR 105 | England | Cited in relation to the defendant's mistaken belief that the council could confer authority. |
| Surrey County Council v Battersby | Unknown | Yes | [1965] 2 QB 194 | England | Cited in relation to a woman who enquired with the local council whether she was obliged to register a certain arrangement and was wrongly advised. |
| Regina v Arrowsmith | Unknown | Yes | [1975] 2 WLR 484 | England | Cited in relation to a defendant who distributed leaflets and defended herself on the basis that a letter she had received from the Director of Public Prosecutions would have led any reasonable person to believe that the distribution of leaflets did not contravene the relevant act. |
| Postermobile plc v Brent London Borough Council | Unknown | Yes | [1997] EWHC Admin 1002 | England and Wales | Illustrates the existence of a defence based on an officially-induced mistake. |
| Regina v Bowsher | Unknown | Yes | [1973] RTR 202 | England | Cited in relation to a defendant who was disqualified from driving and argued that he honestly believed that he was entitled to drive because his license was returned to him. |
| R. v Cancoil Thermal Corporation and Parkinson | Ontario Supreme Court, Court of Appeal | Yes | (1986) 52 CR (3d) 188 | Canada | Cited in relation to the defence of 'officially induced error'. |
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 |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Tak Boleh Tahan
- Public assembly
- Permit
- Miscellaneous Offences Act
- Singapore Democratic Party
- Participation
- Mens rea
- Mistake of law
- Officially induced error
15.2 Keywords
- Public assembly
- Permit
- Illegal assembly
- Singapore
- Criminal law
- Miscellaneous Offences Act
- Tak Boleh Tahan
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Law | 70 |
| Administrative Law | 60 |
| Freedom of assembly | 50 |
| Constitutional Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Public Order
- Freedom of Assembly
- Statutory Interpretation