Public Prosecutor v Sollihin bin Anhar: Revocation of Bail and Standard of Proof
In Public Prosecutor v Sollihin bin Anhar, the Court of Appeal of Singapore addressed the Public Prosecutor's referral regarding the High Court's decision in Criminal Revision No 12 of 2014, concerning the revocation of bail. The court considered two questions of law: whether the High Court can consider new facts in its revisionary jurisdiction and the applicable standard of proof for revoking bail. The Court of Appeal declined to answer the first question as it was hypothetical, and held that there is no specific standard of proof for varying or revoking bail. The court remitted the matter to the State Courts for reconsideration in light of the principles set out in the judgment.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Matter remitted to the State Courts for reconsideration of the prosecution’s application for revocation of bail.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal addressed the standard of proof for revoking bail and the admissibility of new evidence in revisionary jurisdiction, remitting the case for reconsideration.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Applicant | Government Agency | Matter remitted to the State Courts for reconsideration | Remanded | Gordon Oh, Hon Yi, Cheryl Lim |
| Sollihin bin Anhar | Respondent | Individual | Matter remitted to the State Courts for reconsideration | Neutral | Thangavelu, Ong Ying Peng |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
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 Peng | Ong Ying Ping Esq |
4. Facts
- The accused was charged with two counts of engaging in a conspiracy to cheat.
- The prosecution alleged that the accused had contacted potential witnesses with a view to influencing their evidence.
- The District Judge granted the accused bail at $40,000 with one surety, with a condition that he was not to contact any of the prosecution witnesses.
- Nine new charges of engaging in a conspiracy to cheat were tendered against the accused.
- The prosecution applied to revoke the bail, alleging that the accused had contacted five potential prosecution witnesses on ten separate occasions.
- The District Judge rejected the prosecution’s application for the revocation of bail but ordered that the bail amount be increased to $60,000.
- Ten further charges were tendered against the accused under s 204A read with s 511 of the Penal Code for attempting to intentionally pervert the course of justice.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Sollihin bin Anhar, Criminal Reference No 3 of 2014, [2015] SGCA 16
- Public Prosecutor v Sollihin bin Anhar, Criminal Revision No 12 of 2014, [2014] SGHC 228
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Accused charged with conspiracy to cheat. | |
| District Judge granted bail to the accused at $40,000 with one surety. | |
| Nine new charges of conspiracy to cheat tendered against the accused. | |
| Prosecution applied to revoke bail. | |
| District Judge rejected the prosecution’s application for the revocation of bail but increased the bail amount to $60,000. | |
| Ten further charges tendered against the accused under s 204A read with s 511 of the Penal Code. | |
| Prosecution made an application pursuant to s 103(4)(b) of the CPC seeking the revocation of the accused’s bail. | |
| District Judge rejected the prosecution’s application but raised the quantum of the accused person’s bail to $70,000. | |
| Further mention took place before the District Judge at which further conspiracy charges were tendered against the accused. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Standard of Proof for Revoking Bail
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that there is no specific standard of proof when a court considers whether to vary or revoke bail pursuant to ss 102(1) or 103(4) of the CPC. The decision to vary or revoke bail must be premised on an assessment of the evidence that is adduced with a view to arriving at a bail decision that appropriately balances the interests of the accused and those of society.
- Category: Procedural
- Admissibility of New Facts in Revisionary Jurisdiction
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal declined to answer the first question as it was a purely hypothetical question. The court stated that new facts should be brought to the same court that made the original bail decision to enable it to exercise its power to revoke or vary the bail it had extended previously, pursuant to s 102(1) of the CPC.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Revocation of Bail
9. Cause of Actions
- Conspiracy to Cheat
- Attempting to Intentionally Pervert the Course of Justice
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Sollihin bin Anhar | High Court | Yes | [2014] SGHC 228 | Singapore | The decision of the High Court judge in Criminal Revision No 12 of 2014, which dismissed the Public Prosecutor’s application to revoke the order made by the district judge granting bail to the accused, is the origin of the current proceedings. |
| Public Prosecutor v Goldring Timothy Nicholas and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 586 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Court of Appeal is not bound to answer all abstract questions of law of public interest brought by the prosecution. |
| Public Prosecutor v Leng Kah Poh | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 1264 | Singapore | Cited for restating the four requirements for a criminal reference. |
| Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others v Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh | Supreme Court of India | Yes | [1978] SC 429 | India | Cited for the principle that the power to negate personal liberty is a great trust exercisable judicially and with concern for the cost to the individual and the community. |
| Mohamed Razip and others v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1987] SLR(R) 525 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that bail proceedings are interlocutory in nature. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yang Yin | High Court | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 78 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the revisionary court reviewed a decision to grant bail and considered the evidence adduced to assess whether there were grounds to believe that there was a real risk of the accused absconding. |
| Ladd v Marshall | Unknown | Yes | [1954] 1 WLR 1489 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principles laid down regarding the admission of new facts before an appellate court. |
| Juma’at bin Samad v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR(R) 327 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish the application of the principle in Ladd v Marshall to revisionary proceedings concerning bail decisions. |
| Regina (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Havering Magistrates’ Court | Unknown | Yes | [2001] 1 WLR 805 | United Kingdom | Cited for the observation that proceedings under s 7(5) of the Bail Act 1976 (c 63) (UK) are emergency proceedings to determine whether a person presents risks that would justify remanding in custody. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Meng Khin and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 420 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the powers of the Court of Appeal in a criminal reference are wide-ranging and all-encompassing. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 102(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 103(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 420 read with ss 109 and 116 of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| s 204A read with s 511 of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| s 392(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 401(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Bail
- Revocation of Bail
- Standard of Proof
- Revisionary Jurisdiction
- Material Change of Circumstances
- New Facts
- Balancing Exercise
- Interests of Justice
- Presumption of Innocence
- Hearsay Evidence
15.2 Keywords
- Bail
- Revocation
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Standard of Proof
- Singapore
- Court of Appeal
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Bail
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Bail
- Criminal Law