Kreetharan v Public Prosecutor: Conspiracy to Cheat & Criminal Procedure
The Singapore Court of Appeal dismissed criminal motions by Kreetharan s/o Kathireson, Madavakhandam s/o Panjanathan, and Sivakumar s/o Israve, who were convicted in the District Court for conspiracy to cheat under s 420 of the Penal Code. The applicants sought to overturn their convictions or reduce their sentences, arguing that the High Court's dismissal of their appeals should be reviewed and questions of law of public interest should be referred to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal found the applications to be without basis and an abuse of process, as they were thinly veiled attempts to challenge factual findings.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Applications Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal dismissed applications to overturn convictions for conspiracy to cheat, finding the attempts to challenge factual findings an abuse of process.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Application Dismissed | Won | Grace Lim of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Kreetharan s/o Kathireson | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Madavakhandam s/o Panjanathan | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Sivakumar s/o Israve | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | No |
| Quentin Loh | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Grace Lim | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Applicants were convicted of conspiracy to cheat four individuals by posing as police officers or CID personnel.
- Applicants claimed they approached the victims because they were selling fake safety certificates.
- Applicants denied telling the victims they were police officers or CID personnel.
- Trial judge found the victims to be internally consistent in their evidence and to have corroborated each other on material matters.
- Trial judge found the applicants’ evidence to be largely illogical, unsubstantiated and quite incredible.
- B3 was also convicted of voluntarily causing hurt to V3 by punching him on the face and the abdomen.
- The High Court dismissed the appeals against both conviction and sentence.
5. Formal Citations
- Kreetharan s/o Kathireson v Public Prosecutor and other matters, , [2020] SGCA 91
- Kreetharan s/o Kathireson v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 15 of 2020, Criminal Motion No 15 of 2020
- Madavakhandam s/o Panjanathan v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 16 of 2020, Criminal Motion No 16 of 2020
- Sivakumar s/o Israve v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 17 of 2020, Criminal Motion No 17 of 2020
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicants engaged in a conspiracy to cheat four individuals. | |
| Applicants convicted in the District Court. | |
| Case Management Conference held. | |
| Court of Appeal hearing. | |
| Grounds of Decision issued by Court of Appeal. | |
| Applicants to report to State Courts to begin serving sentences. |
7. Legal Issues
- Review of High Court Decision
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the applications for review should have been filed in the High Court and were without merit.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Compliance with Criminal Procedure Code
- Grounds for review
- Leave to Bring Criminal Reference
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the questions raised by the applicants were not questions of law of public interest and were attempts to re-litigate factual issues.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Question of law of public interest
- Re-litigation of factual issues
- Conspiracy to Cheat
- Outcome: The Court upheld the initial conviction of the applicants for conspiracy to cheat.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Overturning of Conviction
- Reduction of Sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Conspiracy to Cheat
- Voluntarily Causing Hurt
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
- Criminal References
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Kreetharan s/o Kathireson and others | District Court | Yes | [2019] SGDC 232 | Singapore | Cited as the judgment where the applicants were initially convicted of the cheating charges. |
| Kho Jabing v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 135 | Singapore | Cited regarding the inherent power of the Court of Appeal to reopen a concluded appeal to prevent a miscarriage of justice. |
| Huang Liping v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 716 | Singapore | Cited to caution that s 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be used as a covert appeal. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 659 | Singapore | Cited for the conditions that must be satisfied before leave can be granted for a criminal reference. |
| Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu and another v Public Prosecutor and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 2 SLR 141 | Singapore | Cited for the conditions that must be satisfied before leave can be granted for a criminal reference. |
| A Ragunathan v Pendakwa Raya | Malaysian Federal Court | Yes | [1982] 1 MLJ 139 | Malaysia | Cited for the test for determining whether a question of law raised in the course of the appeal is of public interest. |
| Public Prosecutor v Teo Chu Ha | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 600 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that courts must determine whether there is sufficient generality embedded within a proposition posed by the question which is more than just descriptive but also contains normative force for it to qualify as a question of law. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 420 of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| s 109 of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| s 323 of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394H(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394I(7)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394H(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 397(3B) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 373 of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Conspiracy to cheat
- Criminal reference
- Miscarriage of justice
- Review application
- Public interest
- Findings of fact
- Abuse of process
- Reasonable doubt
- Credibility of witnesses
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Law
- Cheating
- Singapore
- Court of Appeal
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Review Application
- Criminal Reference
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Cheating | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 85 |
| Complicity | 80 |
| Criminal conspiracy | 80 |
| Theft | 70 |
| Penal Code | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Appeals
- Cheating
- Sentencing