Yuen Ye Ming v Public Prosecutor: Extension of Time for Criminal Reference & Enhanced Punishment under Misuse of Drugs Act
Yuen Ye Ming, a British national, applied for an extension of time to seek leave to refer questions of law of public interest to the Court of Appeal, after his initial appeal against his sentence for drug offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act was dismissed by the High Court. The Court of Appeal, comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Judith Prakash JA, and Tay Yong Kwang JA, dismissed the application, holding that there was no good reason to grant the extension and that the questions raised lacked merit. The court found that granting the extension would result in an abuse of process.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal dismissed Yuen Ye Ming's application for an extension of time to refer questions of law regarding enhanced punishment under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed | Won | Benedict Chan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Ng Yiwen of Attorney-General’s Chambers Rimplejit Kaur of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Yuen Ye Ming | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Benedict Chan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ng Yiwen | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Rimplejit Kaur | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ravi s/o Madasamy | Carson Law Chambers |
4. Facts
- The applicant, Yuen Ye Ming, is a 31-year-old British national.
- The applicant pleaded guilty to drug offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act on two separate occasions.
- The applicant was sentenced to a total of 20 years’ imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane.
- The applicant appealed to the High Court against the sentences, but his appeal was dismissed.
- The applicant filed a criminal motion to seek leave to refer questions of law of public interest to the Court of Appeal, which was dismissed.
- The applicant filed a second application seeking an extension of time to apply for leave to refer questions of law of public interest.
- The applicant argued that he had recently secured fresh legal advice and that the issues raised were in the public interest.
5. Formal Citations
- Yuen Ye Ming v Public Prosecutor, , [2020] SGCA 80
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant arrested for drug offences. | |
| Applicant pleaded guilty to four drug offences. | |
| Applicant arrested for second time for drug trafficking activities. | |
| Applicant pleaded guilty to an additional four charges. | |
| District Court sentenced the Applicant on both sets of offences. | |
| High Court dismissed Applicant's appeal. | |
| Applicant filed Criminal Motion No 1 of 2019. | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed Criminal Motion No 1 of 2019. | |
| Applicant filed Criminal Motion No 6 of 2020. | |
| Court of Appeal heard Criminal Motion No 6 of 2020. | |
| Court of Appeal delivered grounds of decision for Criminal Motion No 6 of 2020. |
7. Legal Issues
- Extension of Time for Criminal Reference
- Outcome: The court refused to grant the extension of time.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2010] 1 SLR 966
- [2020] 1 SLR 907
- [2017] 2 SLR 935
- Enhanced Punishment under Misuse of Drugs Act
- Outcome: The court found that the questions raised by the applicant regarding enhanced punishment lacked merit.
- Category: Substantive
- Double Punishment
- Outcome: The court held that possession and consumption of controlled drugs are two distinct offences and can carry separate punishments.
- Category: Substantive
- Concurrent Sentences of Caning
- Outcome: The court reaffirmed the principle that sentences of caning cannot be imposed as concurrent sentences.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1991] 1 SLR(R) 14
- [2017] 3 SLR 201
- Proportionality of Sentence
- Outcome: The court held that the totality principle is qualified by statutory provisions prescribing mandatory sentences.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2012] 4 SLR 947
- Equal Protection of the Law
- Outcome: The court held that the applicant's punishment did not contradict the Constitutional protection because every drug offender in a similar situation would be subject to the same mandatory provisions relating to caning.
- Category: Constitutional
- Related Cases:
- [1998] 2 SLR(R) 489
8. Remedies Sought
- Extension of Time
- Leave to Refer Questions of Law of Public Interest to the Court of Appeal
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Offences
- Application for Extension of Time
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Criminal Law
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yuen Ye Ming v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] 5 SLR 225 | Singapore | Cited as the High Court decision that the applicant was appealing against. |
| Bachoo Mohan Singh v Public Prosecutor and other applications | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 966 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court will have regard to the length of the delay and the reasons given for the delay when considering whether to grant an extension of time. |
| Mohammad Farid bin Batra v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 907 | Singapore | Cited for the high threshold required for a convicted person to make an assertion against his previous counsel successfully. |
| Chew Eng Han v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 935 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an applicant seeking leave to refer questions of law of public interest cannot be allowed to drip-feed his questions through multiple applications. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 659 | Singapore | Cited for the four cumulative conditions that must be satisfied before leave can be granted under s 397 of the CPC. |
| Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu and another v Public Prosecutor and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 2 SLR 141 | Singapore | Cited for the test for determining if a question of law is one of public interest. |
| A Ragunathan v Pendakwa Raya | Malaysian Federal Court | Yes | [1982] 1 MLJ 139 | Malaysia | Cited within Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu and another v Public Prosecutor and another matter [2013] 2 SLR 141 for the test for determining if a question of law is one of public interest. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chan Chuan & another | High Court | Yes | [1991] 1 SLR(R) 14 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that sentences of caning cannot be imposed as concurrent sentences. |
| M V Balakrishnan v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 846 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where the law has been authoritatively laid down and there is no conflict of authority, the court will guard the exercise of its discretion to grant leave most jealously. |
| Seng Foo Building Construction Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 3 SLR 201 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the operation of the one-transaction rule is subject to the mandatory requirements in the CPC. |
| Azman Bin Morni v Public Prosecutor | Brunei Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] MLJU 1616 | Brunei | Cited by the applicant to argue that sentences of caning are routinely ordered to run concurrently in Malaysia. |
| Public Prosecutor v Peter Ting Chiong King | High Court | Yes | [1987] 1 MLJ 42 | Malaysia | Cited by the prosecution to show that it was not correct to say that sentences of caning are routinely ordered to run concurrently in Malaysia. |
| Osman bin Maimon v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2019] MLJU 1702 | Malaysia | Cited by the prosecution to show that it was not correct to say that sentences of caning are routinely ordered to run concurrently in Malaysia. |
| Mohammad Faizal bin Satu v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 947 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the totality principle is qualified by statutory provisions prescribing mandatory sentences. |
| Public Prosecutor v Taw Cheng Kong | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 489 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that Article 12(1) of the Constitution does not guarantee the equal treatment of all persons but rather, that all persons in like situations are to be treated alike. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| Section 380 of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Article 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Extension of Time
- Criminal Reference
- Public Interest
- Enhanced Punishment
- Sentencing
- Caning
- Proportionality
- Double Punishment
15.2 Keywords
- drug offences
- criminal procedure
- sentencing
- extension of time
- criminal reference
- misuse of drugs act
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Sentencing | 85 |
| Appeal | 60 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing