Daniel De Costa Augustin v Public Prosecutor: Constitutional Law, Equality Before Law
In Daniel De Costa Augustin v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard a criminal motion regarding the prosecution of the applicant for defamation and computer misuse. The applicant argued that his prosecution violated Article 12 of the Constitution, concerning equality before the law, because the Prime Minister's siblings were not prosecuted for similar allegations. Aedit Abdullah J denied the motion, finding that the revised question raised only a factual question and no novel constitutional issue arose.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Motion Denied
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Criminal motion regarding equality before the law. The court denied the motion, finding no novel constitutional issue.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Motion Denied | Won | Ho Lian-Yi of Attorney-General’s Chambers Sheryl Yeo Su Hui of Attorney-General’s Chambers Mohamed Faizal Mohamed Abdul Kadir of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Daniel De Costa Augustin | Applicant | Individual | Motion Denied | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Aedit Abdullah | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ho Lian-Yi | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sheryl Yeo Su Hui | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mohamed Faizal Mohamed Abdul Kadir | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ravi s/o Madasamy | Carson Law Chambers |
4. Facts
- The Applicant faced charges for defamation under s 500 of the Penal Code and an offence under s 3(1) of the Computer Misuse Act.
- The Applicant allegedly accessed another person’s email account without consent and sent an email to The Online Citizen.
- The email was alleged to have defamed members of the Cabinet.
- The Applicant contended that his email merely repeated allegations made by the Prime Minister’s siblings.
- The Prime Minister’s siblings were not prosecuted for making similar allegations.
- The Applicant filed an application in the State Court to refer to the High Court a question relating to Art 12 of the Constitution.
5. Formal Citations
- Daniel De Costa Augustin v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 6 of 2020, [2020] SGHC 112
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Notice of Motion filed | |
| Applicant's Submissions dated | |
| Respondent's Submissions dated | |
| Hearing date | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Equality Before the Law
- Outcome: The court held that the prosecution of the applicant did not contravene Article 12(1) of the Constitution.
- Category: Constitutional
- Related Cases:
- [2012] 2 SLR 49
- Prosecutorial Discretion
- Outcome: The court held that the Public Prosecutor's discretion was exercised constitutionally.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2012] 2 SLR 49
8. Remedies Sought
- Constitutional Reference
9. Cause of Actions
- Defamation
- Computer Misuse
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Constitutional Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 49 | Singapore | Cited for principles governing the exercise of prosecutorial discretion and equality before the law under Article 12 of the Constitution. |
| Chee Soon Juan and another v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | High Court | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 940 | Singapore | Cited for the two-stage test to determine when constitutional questions can be referred to the High Court. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis | High Court | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 239 | Singapore | Cited as distinct as it dealt with the issue of the limits to prosecutorial power, specifically as to whether adducing of entrapment evidence by the Attorney-General was an abuse of prosecutorial power. |
| Teh Cheng Poh v Public Prosecutor | Federal Court | Yes | [1979] 1 MLJ 50 | Malaysia | Cited as distinct as it only considered the question of whether the Attorney-General had the discretion to choose which offence to charge the accused with. |
| Gujarat Ginning and Manufacturing Company Limited v Motilal Hirabhai Spinning and Manufacturing Company Limited | Bombay High Court | Yes | LNIND 1935 BOM 164 | India | Cited for the principle that inferences to be drawn from admitted or proved facts is a question of law. |
| Public Prosecutor v Teo Chu Ha | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 600 | Singapore | Cited for the distinction between questions of fact and questions of law. |
| Yeo Hwee Hua and others v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 515 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the application of established standards of proof to the facts of the case is a question of fact. |
| James Raj s/o Arokiasamy v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 750 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that what amounts to a 'reasonable time' is a question of fact. |
| Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1979-1980] SLR(R) 710 | Singapore | Cited in Ramalingam for consideration of the law pertaining to the constitutional ambits of prosecutorial discretion under Article 12(1). |
| Sim Min Teck v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1987] SLR(R) 65 | Singapore | Cited in Ramalingam for consideration of the law pertaining to the constitutional ambits of prosecutorial discretion under Article 12(1). |
| Thiruselvam s/o Nagaratnam v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 362 | Singapore | Cited in Ramalingam for consideration of the law pertaining to the constitutional ambits of prosecutorial discretion under Article 12(1). |
| Johari bin Kanadi and another v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 422 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is not sufficient to set out a new factual situation as new fact permutations will always arise, and in such cases the settled principles can just be applied or extrapolated. |
| Lee Siew Boon Winston v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] SGCA 67 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that every application of an objective test in a specific context is not a question of law. |
| Abdul Kahar bin Othman v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1394 | Singapore | Cited for the court's inherent power to order counsel to pay costs to the Prosecution directly. |
| Prometheus Marine Pte Ltd v King, Ann Rita and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that counsel has an overriding duty to the court and the administration of justice. |
| D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid and another | High Court of Australia | Yes | [2006] 1 LRC 168 | Australia | Cited for the principle that counsel has an overriding duty to the court and the administration of justice. |
| Chee Siok Chin and others v Minister for Home Affairs and another | High Court | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 582 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of the terms 'frivolous' and 'vexatious'. |
| Attorney-General of the Duchy of Lancaster v London and North Western Railway Company | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1892] 3 Ch 274 | England and Wales | Cited for the judicial interpretation of the words 'frivolous' and 'vexatious'. |
| Goh Koon Suan v Heng Gek Kiau | High Court | Yes | [1990] 2 SLR(R) 705 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of 'vexatious' action. |
| Ridehalgh v Horsefield and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] Ch 205 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the conduct in question must amount to an abuse of the court's process for costs to be ordered against a solicitor personally. |
| Bintai Kindenko Pte Ltd v Samsung C&T Corp | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 532 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it must be just in all the circumstances for costs to be ordered. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Computer Misuse Act (Cap 50A, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Equality before the law
- Prosecutorial discretion
- Constitutional motion
- Defamation
- Computer Misuse Act
15.2 Keywords
- constitutional law
- criminal procedure
- equality before law
- prosecutorial discretion
- singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Law | 80 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Sentencing | 20 |
| Civil Procedure | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Constitutional Law
- Criminal Law