Mah Kiat Seng v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Reference on Private Defence & Evidence Act

The Court of Appeal of Singapore dismissed the criminal motion filed by Mah Kiat Seng against the Public Prosecutor, concerning his appeal in HC/MA 9036/2019/01. Mah Kiat Seng sought leave to raise questions of law of public interest regarding his conviction for voluntarily causing hurt. The court found that the questions were actually questions of fact and dismissed the motion. The court also cautioned the applicant against filing further unmeritorious applications.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Motion 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 Mah Kiat Seng's criminal motion, finding his questions of law were actually questions of fact regarding private defense.

1.7 Decision Date

10 August 2021

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Respondent	Government Agency	Motion Dismissed	Won	Wong Woon Kwong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Andre Chong of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Mah Kiat Seng	Applicant, Appellant	Individual	Motion Dismissed	Lost

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Judith Prakash	Justice of the Court of Appeal	Yes
Tay Yong Kwang	Justice of the Court of Appeal	No
Belinda Ang Saw Ean	Judge of the Appellate Division	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Wong Woon Kwong	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Andre Chong	Attorney-General’s Chambers

4. Facts

The applicant entered a classroom without permission.
The applicant allegedly played loud music in the classroom.
A security officer found the applicant in the classroom.
The applicant did not provide identification to the security officer.
The applicant allegedly punched the security officer multiple times during a scuffle.
The District Judge convicted the applicant on the voluntarily causing hurt charge.
The High Court dismissed the applicant's appeal.

5. Formal Citations

Mah Kiat Seng v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 11 of 2021, [2021] SGCA 79

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2017-11-30	Applicant entered a classroom without permission and allegedly punched a security officer.
2018-07-30	Applicant was charged with voluntarily causing hurt.
2018-10-09	Applicant was charged with criminal trespass.
2019-01-31	District Judge acquitted applicant on trespass charge but convicted him on the voluntarily causing hurt charge.
2019-02-08	District Judge imposed a fine of $5,000 on the applicant.
2019-02-15	Applicant filed a Notice of Appeal.
2020-01-13	District Judge issued his grounds of decision.
2020-08-24	High Court dismissed MA 9036.
2020-08-31	Applicant filed CM 24 in the Court of Appeal and CM 40 in the High Court.
2020-09-17	Judge summarily refused CM 40.
2021-02-01	Court of Appeal dismissed CM 24.
2021-02-25	Applicant filed the present Motion.
2021-07-08	Court heard the applicant’s arguments and dismissed the Motion.
2021-08-11	Grounds of Decision issued.

7. Legal Issues

Extension of Time
- Outcome: The court found that there was no basis for the applicant to be granted an extension of time to file the Motion.
- Category: Procedural
Leave to Bring Criminal Reference
- Outcome: The court found that the three questions were clearly questions of fact, not law, and dismissed the motion.
- Category: Procedural
Private Defence
- Outcome: The court found that the applicant's act of punching the security officer multiple times exceeded what was reasonably necessary.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Leave to raise questions of law of public interest to the Court of Appeal
Rehearing of his appeal in MA 9036

9. Cause of Actions

Voluntarily Causing Hurt
Criminal Trespass

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Law
Appeals

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 1 SLR 659	Singapore	Cited for the four conditions that must be satisfied before leave is granted to bring a criminal reference to the Court of Appeal.
Yuen Ye Ming v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2020] 2 SLR 970	Singapore	Cited regarding the length of and reasons for delay in considering whether to grant an extension of time.
Bachoo Mohan Singh v Public Prosecutor and other applications	High Court	Yes	[2010] 1 SLR 966	Singapore	Cited regarding the length of and reasons for delay in considering whether to grant an extension of time.
Public Prosecutor v Tan Peng Khoon	High Court	Yes	[2016] 1 SLR 713	Singapore	Cited regarding the existence of some prospect of success in the appeal in determining whether such an extension should be granted.
Chew Eng Han v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 935	Singapore	Cited regarding the principle of finality in the judicial process.
R v Self	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1992] 3 All ER 476	England and Wales	Cited by the applicant to argue that there was a conflict in judicial authority.
Public Prosecutor v GCK and another matter	High Court	Yes	[2020] 1 SLR 486	Singapore	Cited for the four conditions that must be satisfied under s 397 of the CPC before leave is granted to bring a criminal reference to the Court of Appeal.
Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu and another v Public Prosecutor and another matter	High Court	Yes	[2013] 2 SLR 141	Singapore	Cited wherein the principle of finality was emphasised.
Kreetharan s/o Kathireson v Public Prosecutor and other matters	High Court	Yes	[2020] 2 SLR 1175	Singapore	Cited regarding factual challenges that cannot be made in the context of a criminal reference.
Mah Kiat Seng v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2011] 3 SLR 859	Singapore	Cited regarding issues of the construction of statutory provisions potentially applicable to other members of the public are not, ipso facto, questions of law of public interest.
Tan Chor Jin v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2008] 4 SLR(R) 306	Singapore	Cited regarding the threshold of “reasonably necessary” in the context of private defence.
Public Prosecutor v Mah Kiat Seng	State Court	Yes	[2020] SGMC 4	Singapore	The District Judge's grounds of decision in the trial.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 397(1)	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 66(6)(a)	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 397(3)	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 394H	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 409	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 405	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 407	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 397(3B)(b)	Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 323	Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 447	Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 96	Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 95	Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 101(1)	Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 98(1)	Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 47(1)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Criminal Motion
Criminal Reference
Leave to Appeal
Private Defence
Voluntarily Causing Hurt
Extension of Time
Questions of Law of Public Interest

15.2 Keywords

Criminal Motion
Criminal Reference
Private Defence
Voluntarily Causing Hurt
Singapore Court of Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Criminal Procedure	95
Criminal Law	90
Sentencing	90
Evidence	60
Appellate Practice	50

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure
Appeals
Sentencing