BLV v Public Prosecutor: Adducing Fresh Evidence, Abuse of Process, False Evidence

In BLV v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore reviewed additional evidence on remittal concerning BLV's conviction on sexual assault charges. The key issue was whether new evidence from a witness regarding the shape of BLV's penis was credible. Justice Aedit Abdullah found the witness's testimony to be false and concluded that BLV had committed abuse of process by colluding to introduce false evidence. Consequently, the court upheld the original verdict.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Original verdict upheld; new evidence rejected; finding of abuse of process.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Findings on Remittal

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court reviewed fresh evidence in BLV v Public Prosecutor regarding sexual assault charges. The court found the new evidence false and concluded the accused committed abuse of process, upholding the original verdict.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyJudgment AffirmedWon
April Phang Suet Fern of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Mohamed Faizal Bin Abdul Kadir of Attorney-General’s Chambers
James Chew Shi Jun of Attorney-General’s Chambers
BLVAppellantIndividualAppeal DeniedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Aedit AbdullahJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
April Phang Suet FernAttorney-General’s Chambers
Mohamed Faizal Bin Abdul KadirAttorney-General’s Chambers
James Chew Shi JunAttorney-General’s Chambers
Ramesh Chandr TiwaryRamesh Tiwary

4. Facts

  1. The accused was convicted of sexual assault on his daughter.
  2. The case hinged on the shape of the accused's penis.
  3. The accused sought to introduce fresh evidence from a witness who claimed to have seen his penis.
  4. The witness's testimony contradicted the victim's account.
  5. The court found the witness's testimony to be contrived and false.
  6. The court found that the accused and the witness colluded to introduce false evidence.
  7. The court rejected the new evidence and upheld the original verdict.

5. Formal Citations

  1. BLV v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 10 of 2017, [2019] SGCA 06
  2. PP v BLV, , [2017] SGHC 154

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Criminal Appeal No 10 of 2017 filed
Accused convicted on 10 charges of sexual assault
Appeal hearing in January 2018
Accused sought to adduce fresh evidence
Hearing on remittal
Hearing on remittal
Hearing on remittal
Hearing on remittal
Judgment reserved
Findings made by the Court under s 392 of the Criminal Procedure Code

7. Legal Issues

  1. Admissibility of Fresh Evidence
    • Outcome: The court found the fresh evidence to be inadmissible due to concerns about its truthfulness and the credibility of the witness and the accused.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Credibility of witness
      • Circumstances of encounter
      • Nature and extent of friendship
      • Contrived recollection
      • Opportunity to observe
      • What was observed
      • What was drawn
  2. Abuse of Process
    • Outcome: The court found that the accused committed abuse of process by colluding with the witness to introduce false evidence.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Collusion to introduce false evidence
      • Manufacturing of evidence
  3. False Evidence
    • Outcome: The court determined that the evidence presented by the witness was false.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against conviction
  2. Adducing fresh evidence

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
PP v BLVHigh CourtYes[2017] SGHC 154SingaporeCited for the initial conviction and sentencing of the accused, establishing the procedural history of the case.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Fresh evidence
  • Abuse of process
  • False evidence
  • Sexual assault
  • Credibility
  • Collusion
  • Remittal

15.2 Keywords

  • Criminal appeal
  • Sexual assault
  • Fresh evidence
  • Abuse of process
  • False evidence
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Abuse of Process80
Criminal Procedure75
False Evidence70
Admissibility of evidence60
Evidence60
Similar fact evidence50
Criminal Law40
Fraud and Deceit40
Obstructing, preventing, perverting or defeating course of justice30
Civil Procedure20

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Evidence
  • Criminal Procedure