Soh Guan Cheow Anthony v Public Prosecutor: Interpretation of Criminal Procedure Code on Referral of Questions of Law
In Soh Guan Cheow Anthony v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore addressed whether a trial judge in the State Courts could refer a question of law to the High Court during a criminal trial under s 395(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Public Prosecutor raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the trial judge lacked jurisdiction to refer the questions of law. The High Court, presided over by Chao Hick Tin JA, upheld the preliminary objection, ruling that the word 'order' in s 395(2)(b) refers only to final orders, and thus the trial judge could not refer the questions of law during the trial.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
The High Court ruled that a trial judge in the State Courts cannot refer a non-constitutional question of law to the High Court during a trial under s 395(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The preliminary objection was upheld.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court examined whether a trial judge in State Courts can refer a question of law to the High Court during a trial under s 395(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soh Guan Cheow Anthony | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | Michael Khoo, Josephine Low, Chung Yee Shen Bernard, Joel Yeow Guan Wei |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Preliminary Objection Upheld | Won | Peter Koy, Leong Weng Tat, Nicholas Tan |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Michael Khoo | Michael Khoo & Partners |
| Josephine Low | Michael Khoo & Partners |
| Chung Yee Shen Bernard | Michael Khoo & Partners |
| Joel Yeow Guan Wei | Michael Khoo & Partners |
| Peter Koy | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Leong Weng Tat | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Nicholas Tan | Attorney-General's Chambers |
4. Facts
- The applicant is on trial in the State Courts for 11 charges under the Securities and Futures Act.
- The charges arose from a failed takeover bid by the applicant’s investment holding company.
- Following the close of the Prosecution’s case, the applicant filed a discovery application.
- The discovery application was dismissed by the trial judge.
- The applicant applied for the trial judge to state a case to the High Court on five questions of law.
- The trial judge allowed the reference application and added a further question of his own.
5. Formal Citations
- Soh Guan Cheow Anthony v Public Prosecutor, Special Case No 1 of 2014, [2014] SGHC 238
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Prosecution's case closed | |
| Discovery application dismissed by the trial judge | |
| Applicant applied for trial judge to state a case to the High Court | |
| Parties attended before the High Court | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Jurisdiction of Trial Court to Refer Questions of Law
- Outcome: The High Court held that the word 'order' in s 395(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code refers only to final orders, and thus the trial judge lacked jurisdiction to refer the questions of law during the trial.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Interpretation of 'order' in s 395(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code
- Distinction between constitutional and non-constitutional questions of law
- Related Cases:
- [2012] 1 SLR 615
8. Remedies Sought
- Referral of questions of law to the High Court
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Finance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Soh Guan Cheow Anthony | District Court | Yes | [2014] SGDC 107 | Singapore | Cited for the trial judge’s grounds of decision for dismissing the disclosure application and allowing the reference application. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ng Guan Hup | High Court | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 314 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the presumption in statutory construction that similar words in the same statute should be given the same meaning is a rebuttable one. |
| Azman bin Jamaludin v PP | High Court | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 615 | Singapore | Cited for the court's consideration of whether s 263 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1985 could apply to interlocutory orders. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Securities and Futures Act (Cap 289, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Reference application
- Preliminary objection
- Interlocutory orders
- Final orders
- Constitutional questions of law
- Non-constitutional questions of law
- Trial court jurisdiction
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Reference of questions of law
- Jurisdiction
- Interlocutory orders
- Final orders
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Statutory Interpretation
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Statutory Interpretation