Public Prosecutor v Sollihin bin Anhar: Criminal Revision of Bail Extension for Cheating and Perverting Justice
The Public Prosecutor applied for a criminal revision to reverse the District Judge's decision to extend bail to Sollihin bin Anhar, who was accused of conspiring to cheat insurance companies and attempting to pervert the course of justice by contacting potential witnesses. The High Court, presided over by Tay Yong Kwang J, dismissed the application, finding no apparent illegality or serious miscarriage of justice. The Prosecution has since referred questions of law of public interest to the Court of Appeal.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application for criminal revision dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Criminal revision by the Public Prosecutor to reverse the District Judge's order to extend bail to Sollihin bin Anhar, accused of cheating and perverting justice. The High Court dismissed the application.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Applicant | Government Agency | Application for criminal revision dismissed | Lost | Gordon Oh, Hon Yi, Cheryl Lim |
| Sollihin bin Anhar | Respondent | Individual | Bail extended | Won | Thangavelu, Ong Ying Ping |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Gordon Oh | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Hon Yi | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Cheryl Lim | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Thangavelu | Thangavelu LLC |
| Ong Ying Ping | Ong Ying Ping Esq |
4. Facts
- The Respondent was alleged to have conspired to stage motor accidents to cheat insurance companies.
- Prior to being charged, the Respondent allegedly contacted potential witnesses, urging them not to incriminate him.
- The Respondent was charged with conspiracy to cheat under s 420 read with s 116 and s 109 of the Penal Code.
- The District Judge granted the Respondent bail with conditions, including not contacting prosecution witnesses.
- Nine new charges of conspiracy to cheat were tendered against the Respondent on 2 July 2014.
- The Prosecution submitted that bail ought to be revoked as the Respondent had allegedly contacted potential witnesses after the first mention.
- Ten charges of attempting to intentionally pervert the course of justice were tendered against the Respondent on 15 July 2014.
- The Prosecution applied for the Respondent’s bail to be revoked pursuant to s 103(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Sollihin bin Anhar, Criminal Revision No 12 of 2014, [2014] SGHC 228
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Respondent formally charged in State Courts | |
| Nine new charges tendered against Respondent | |
| Ten charges of attempting to intentionally pervert the course of justice tendered against Respondent | |
| District Judge rejected Prosecution's application to revoke bail | |
| Seven additional charges preferred against Respondent | |
| Expedited hearing before Tay Yong Kwang J | |
| Hearing before Tay Yong Kwang J | |
| Public Prosecutor filed a criminal reference in CRF 3/2014 | |
| Decision of the High Court |
7. Legal Issues
- Extension of Bail
- Outcome: The High Court upheld the District Judge's decision to extend bail to the respondent.
- Category: Procedural
- Standard of Proof for Revoking Bail
- Outcome: The High Court agreed that the standard of proof should not be that of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
- Category: Procedural
- High Court's Revisionary Powers
- Outcome: The High Court determined that its revisionary powers were broad enough to review bail decisions by the State Courts.
- Category: Jurisdictional
8. Remedies Sought
- Revocation of Bail
- Remand in Custody
9. Cause of Actions
- Conspiracy to Cheat
- Attempting to Intentionally Pervert the Course of Justice
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Criminal Revision
11. Industries
- Insurance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mohamed Razip and others v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1987] SLR(R) 525 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that a decision arrived at in relation to a bail application is merely interlocutory in nature and does not amount to a judgment or order of finality from which an avenue for appeal arises. |
| Chua Chuan Heng Allan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR(R) 409 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the court will only exercise its revisionary powers when it is necessary to correct a serious injustice which is so palpably wrong that it strikes at the exercise of judicial power by the court below. |
| Ang Poh Chuan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 929 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the court will only exercise its revisionary powers when it is necessary to correct a serious injustice which is so palpably wrong that it strikes at the exercise of judicial power by the court below. |
| Ng Chye Huey and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 106 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the revisionary powers of the High Court ought to be exercised sparingly. |
| Re Radha Krishna Naidu | Unknown | Yes | [1962] MLJ 130 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that the court should only exercise revisional powers in exceptional cases when there has been a denial of the right of a fair trial or it is urgently demanded in the interest of public justice. |
| The Queen on the Application of Royston Thomas v Greenwich Magistrates’ Court | English High Court | Yes | [2009] Crim LR 800 | United Kingdom | Referred to for the proposition that the burden of proving a breach of the condition was on a balance of probabilities. |
| Knight Glenn Jeyasingam v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 196 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that powers of revision can only be exercised in exceptional circumstances and that a court does not hear a petition of revision as it does an appeal. |
| Sarjit Singh s/o Mehar Singh v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR(R) 1040 | Singapore | Cited for the distinction between the duties of an appellate court and that of a revisionary court. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 420 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 116 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 109 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 204A | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 511 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 103(4) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 97 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 102(1) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 23 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 400 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 401(2) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code ss 383, 389, 390 and 392 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 390 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 354 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal Revision
- Bail Extension
- Conspiracy to Cheat
- Perverting the Course of Justice
- Witness Tampering
- Standard of Proof
- Revisionary Powers
- Hearsay Evidence
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Revision
- Bail
- Cheating
- Perverting Justice
- Singapore
- High Court
16. Subjects
- Criminal Procedure
- Bail
- Criminal Law
- Revision
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Revisionary Jurisdiction