Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v Public Prosecutor: Appeal on Unlawful Assembly & Refusal to Sign Statement
Wham Kwok Han Jolovan appealed to the High Court of Singapore against his conviction and sentence by the District Judge for organizing an unlawful public assembly and refusing to sign a statement recorded under s 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court, presided over by Chua Lee Ming J, dismissed the appeals, upholding the conviction and sentence for both offences. The court found that the event organized by Wham publicised a cause without a permit, violating the Public Order Act, and that his refusal to sign the statement was a violation of the Penal Code.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeals against conviction and sentence for both offences dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Wham Kwok Han Jolovan appeals conviction for organizing an unlawful assembly and refusing to sign a police statement. The High Court dismisses the appeal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Kumaresan Gohulabalan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Seah Ee Wei of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Wham Kwok Han Jolovan | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chua Lee Ming | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Kumaresan Gohulabalan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Seah Ee Wei | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Suang Wijaya | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Johannes Hadi | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
4. Facts
- The appellant organized an event entitled “Civil Disobedience and Social Movements” with Zeng Ruiqing.
- The event was publicized on Facebook and open to the public.
- Joshua Wong, a Hong Kong activist, was a speaker at the event via video call.
- The Police advised the appellant to apply for a permit, but he did not.
- The appellant refused to sign a statement recorded under s 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- The District Judge convicted the appellant on charges of unlawful assembly and refusing to sign the statement.
5. Formal Citations
- Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9041 of 2019, [2019] SGHC 251
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Event held to publicise the cause of civil disobedience and democracy in social change | |
| Police report lodged in relation to the Event | |
| Investigating officer recorded a statement from the appellant pursuant to s 22 CPC | |
| Investigating officer recorded two statements from the appellant pursuant to s 23 CPC | |
| District Judge convicted the appellant on both charges | |
| Appellant sentenced on both charges | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Constitutionality of Section 16(1)(a) of the Public Order Act
- Outcome: The court held that s 16(1)(a) POA does not contravene Article 14 of the Constitution.
- Category: Constitutional
- Whether the Event was a Public Assembly
- Outcome: The court found that the event was a public assembly as it publicised a cause without a permit.
- Category: Substantive
- Whether Police Officer was Legally Competent to Require Appellant to Sign Statement
- Outcome: The court held that the police officer recording a statement pursuant to s 22 CPC is legally competent to require the statement-giver to sign his statement.
- Category: Procedural
- Whether the Sentence is Manifestly Excessive
- Outcome: The court found that the fines imposed by the District Judge were not manifestly excessive.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Unlawful Assembly
- Refusal to Sign Statement
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Constitutional Law
11. Industries
- Social Work
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chee Siok Chin and others v Minister for Home Affairs and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 582 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that Parliament can take a prophylactic approach in the maintenance of public order. |
| Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | No | [1989] 2 SLR(R) 419 | Singapore | Cited to discuss the argument that the invalidity of a licensing officer’s decision could provide a defence to a charge under s 18(1)(a) PEA. |
| Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 49 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that acts of high officials of state should be accorded a presumption of legality or regularity. |
| Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 1205 | Singapore | Cited to highlight that the rules prescribed by the CPC for the recording of statements are in existence to provide a safeguard as to reliability. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ng Chye Huay | State Courts | No | [2017] SGMC 42 | Singapore | Cited as a sentencing precedent for the offence of refusing to sign statements recorded by police officers pursuant to s 22 CPC. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Public Order Act (Cap 257A, 2012 Rev Ed) s 16(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 22 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 180 | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Cap 1, 1985 Rev Ed) Article 14 | Singapore |
| Public Order Act (Cap 257A, 2012 Rev Ed) s 6 | Singapore |
| Public Order Act (Cap 257A, 2012 Rev Ed) s 7 | Singapore |
| Public Order Act (Cap 257A, 2012 Rev Ed) s 11(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 22(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 22(2) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 22(3) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Public assembly
- Civil disobedience
- Freedom of assembly
- Section 180 Penal Code
- Section 22 Criminal Procedure Code
- Permit
- Constitutionality
- Manifestly excessive
15.2 Keywords
- Public assembly
- Freedom of speech
- Civil disobedience
- Singapore
- Criminal law
- Constitutional law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Sentencing | 80 |
| Criminal Procedure | 80 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Freedom of assembly | 65 |
| Constitutional Law | 60 |
| Fundamental liberties | 50 |
| Elements of crime | 40 |
| Administrative Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Constitutional Law
- Public Order
- Criminal Procedure