Nur Jihad bin Rosli v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Trespass and Theft
Nur Jihad bin Rosli appealed to the High Court of Singapore against his conviction for house-breaking and theft under Section 454 of the Penal Code. The High Court, presided over by See Kee Oon J, dismissed the appeal, holding that the insertion of a bamboo pole to steal items from a dwelling constitutes 'entering' under Section 442 of the Penal Code, even without physical entry of the offender's body. The court clarified the interpretation of 'entering' and upheld the conviction.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court upheld Nur Jihad bin Rosli's conviction for house-breaking and theft, clarifying the definition of 'entering' under Section 442 of the Penal Code.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Judgment Upheld | Won | Chan Yi Cheng of Attorney-General’s Chambers Tan Wee Hao of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Nur Jihad bin Rosli | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| See Kee Oon | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Chan Yi Cheng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Wee Hao | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Gino Hardial Singh | Abbots Chambers LLC |
4. Facts
- The Appellant used a bamboo pole to hook a sling bag from inside a unit through an opened window louver.
- The sling bag contained cash and a POSB debit card belonging to Hamirul.
- The Appellant admitted to using the bamboo pole to steal items from the unit.
- The Appellant retained the cash and POSB debit card but discarded the bag and remaining items.
- The victims, Hamirul and Nurul, were residents of the unit at Block 1, Spooner Road.
- The main door and window louver were ajar when Nurul woke up.
- Unauthorized transactions were made using Hamirul's POSB debit card.
5. Formal Citations
- Nur Jihad bin Rosli v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9044/2018/01, [2018] SGHC 220
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant convicted of an offence under sections 454 read with 458A and 34 of the Penal Code. | |
| House-breaking and theft occurred at Block 1, Spooner Road. | |
| Appellant's sentence took effect. | |
| Hearing of the appeal. | |
| Appeal against conviction dismissed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Interpretation of 'Entering' under Section 442 of the Penal Code
- Outcome: The court held that 'entering' under Section 442 includes the use of an instrument to enter premises, even without physical entry of the offender's body.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Physical entry vs. entry by instrument
- Legislative intent of Section 442
- Application of strict construction rule
- Related Cases:
- [2018] SGDC 56
- [2017] 1 SLR 373
- [2018] 1 SLR 659
- [2017] 2 SLR 850
- [2017] 5 SLR 1081
- [2010] 4 SLR 1119
- AIR 1925 PC 1
- [1999] 1 SLR(R) 669
- [2007] 4 SLR(R) 183
- (1785) 1 Leach 406
- (1850) 4 Cox 400
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- House-breaking
- Theft
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Theft
- House-breaking
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Nur Jihad Bin Rosli | District Court | Yes | [2018] SGDC 56 | Singapore | The District Judge's decision that the Prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and convicted the Appellant was upheld. |
| Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 373 | Singapore | Cited for the purposive approach to statutory interpretation. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung and others | High Court | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 659 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the Court’s decision to assign weight to extraneous materials would be guided by s 9A(4) of the Interpretation Act. |
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Cited for the purposive interpretation approach. |
| Shaikh Farid v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | High Court | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 1081 | Singapore | Cited to explain the role and utility of explanations in the Penal Code. |
| Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan and others v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 4 SLR 1119 | Singapore | Endorsed the Privy Council’s comments in Barendra Kumar Ghosh v Emperor AIR 1925 PC 1 on the approach to construing Indian Penal Code provisions. |
| Barendra Kumar Ghosh v Emperor | Privy Council | Yes | AIR 1925 PC 1 | United Kingdom | Reference to English cases on criminal law was not irrelevant where the Indian Penal Code provisions were unclear on their face. |
| Planmarine AG v Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 669 | Singapore | There is therefore no requirement for any ambiguity or absurdity to be found before recourse may be had to extraneous materials. |
| Public Prosecutor v Low Kok Heng | High Court | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 183 | Singapore | This rule applies only in cases where penal provisions remain ambiguous even after all attempts at purposive interpretation pursuant to s 9A(1) of the Interpretation Act have been properly made and proven unilluminating |
| The King v John Hughes and others | Court of King's Bench | Yes | (1785) 1 Leach 406 | England and Wales | Show that the position prevailing in English common law at the time of the enactment of the Indian Penal Code was that it was sufficient to constitute “entry” for a person to insert an instrument into the premises for the purpose of removing property, even if no part of his body entered the premises. |
| R v O’Brien | Central Criminal Court | Yes | (1850) 4 Cox 400 | England and Wales | Show that the position prevailing in English common law at the time of the enactment of the Indian Penal Code was that it was sufficient to constitute “entry” for a person to insert an instrument into the premises for the purpose of removing property, even if no part of his body entered the premises. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 454 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 458A | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 420 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 34 | Singapore |
| Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity Act (Cap 50A, 2007 Rev Ed) s 3(1) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 445 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 442 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 380 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 323 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 509 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 447 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 448 | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 9A | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- House-breaking
- House-trespass
- Entering
- Purposive interpretation
- Extraneous materials
- Strict construction rule
- Bamboo pole
- Spooner Road
- Penal Code
- Legislative intent
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Trespass
- House-breaking
- Theft
- Penal Code
- Statutory Interpretation
- Singapore Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Law | 95 |
| Theft | 90 |
| House-trespass | 90 |
| Property Law | 85 |
| Criminal Procedure | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Statutory Interpretation
- Property Offences