Miya Manik v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Motions, Adducing Fresh Evidence, Abuse of Process
The Singapore Court of Appeal heard Criminal Motions 6 and 23 of 2021, concerning Miya Manik's appeal against his sentence for voluntarily causing grievous hurt. Manik sought to introduce fresh evidence in the form of psychiatric reports, which the Prosecution opposed. The Court dismissed Manik's motion, finding it to be an abuse of process due to the lack of merit and relevance of the evidence. The Court also expressed concerns regarding the conduct of Manik's counsel and the psychiatrist involved.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Criminal Motion No 6 of 2021 dismissed; no order made on Criminal Motion No 23 of 2021.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal dismissed Miya Manik's motion to adduce fresh evidence, citing abuse of process and inadequate evidence. The court addressed concerns over counsel's conduct.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent, Applicant | Government Agency | No Order Made | Neutral | Andre Chong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Kumaresan s/o Gohulabalan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Grace Chua of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Miya Manik | Appellant, Respondent | Individual | Criminal Motion Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Andre Chong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Kumaresan s/o Gohulabalan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Grace Chua | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chooi Jing Yen | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Joel Wong En Jie | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
4. Facts
- Miya Manik was convicted of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons.
- Manik sought to adduce fresh evidence in the form of psychiatric reports to aid his appeal against his sentence.
- The psychiatric reports stated that Manik was diagnosed with adjustment disorder.
- The Prosecution opposed the application, arguing that the evidence was not relevant or reliable.
- The Court of Appeal found that the requirements for adducing fresh evidence were not met.
- The court found that the application was an abuse of process.
- The court expressed concerns over the conduct of Manik's counsel and the psychiatrist involved.
5. Formal Citations
- Miya Manik v Public Prosecutor, , [2021] SGCA 90
- Miya Manik v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 6 of 2021, Criminal Motion No 6 of 2021
- Public Prosecutor v Miya Manik, Criminal Motion No 23 of 2021, Criminal Motion No 23 of 2021
- Miya Manik v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 26 of 2020, Criminal Appeal No 26 of 2020
- Public Prosecutor v Miya Manik, , [2020] SGHC 164
- Public Prosecutor v Toh Sia Guan, , [2020] SGHC 92
- Public Prosecutor v Teo Ghim Heng, , [2021] SGHC 13
- Public Prosecutor v Ahmed Salim, , [2021] SGHC 68
- Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Salihin bin Ismail, HC/CC 6/2021, HC/CC 6/2021
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Munshi Abdur Rahim was attacked. | |
| Miya Manik was arrested. | |
| Miya Manik's trial commenced. | |
| Miya Manik's trial spanned 11 days and ended. | |
| Judgment delivered acquitting Miya Manik of murder, and convicting him on a substituted charge. | |
| Miya Manik was sentenced. | |
| The Prosecution filed CA/CCA 16/2020. | |
| Miya Manik filed CCA 26. | |
| Dr. Ung issued a report. | |
| Dr. Ung issued a report. | |
| Miya Manik filed CM 6. | |
| Dr. Ung provided further reports. | |
| Dr. Ung provided further reports. | |
| Dr. Koh prepared a psychiatric assessment report. | |
| Dr. Koh examined Miya Manik. | |
| The Prosecution filed CM 23. | |
| Hearing on CM 6 and CM 23; CM 6 dismissed, no order on CM 23. | |
| Grounds of Decision issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Adducing Fresh Evidence
- Outcome: The court held that the requirements for adducing fresh evidence were not met.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Non-availability of evidence at trial
- Relevance of evidence to the appeal
- Reliability of evidence
- Related Cases:
- [1954] 1 WLR 1489
- [2014] 3 SLR 299
- [2018] 1 SLR 544
- Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court found that the application to adduce fresh evidence was an abuse of process.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Filing of manifestly groundless applications
- Attack on the integrity of the judicial process
- Related Cases:
- [2006] 1 SLR(R) 582
- [2019] 2 SLR 726
- Professional Impropriety of Counsel
- Outcome: The court expressed serious concerns over the conduct of the counsel but did not refer him to the Law Society due to his unreserved apology.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to properly assess the merits of the client's case
- Failure to properly instruct experts
- Wasting the court's time with unmeritorious applications
- Related Cases:
- [2008] 2 SLR(R) 491
- [2010] 4 SLR 534
- [2021] 2 SLR 377
- Relevance of Psychiatric Evidence to Sentencing
- Outcome: The court found that the psychiatric evidence was not relevant to the question of Miya Manik's sentence.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Causal link between mental illness and the commission of the offence
- Judicial mercy
- Disproportionate impact of imprisonment due to illness
- Related Cases:
- [2016] 2 SLR 78
- [2018] SGDC 82
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against sentence
- Adducing fresh evidence
9. Cause of Actions
- Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appellate Practice
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa and other appeals and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 63 | Singapore | Cited to caution against the improper invocation of court processes in civil proceedings. |
| Mah Kiat Seng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 79 | Singapore | Cited to reiterate the concern against improper invocation of court processes in criminal proceedings. |
| Ng Soon Kim v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2020] 3 SLR 1097 | Singapore | Cited as a sentencing framework precedent. |
| Public Prosecutor v BDB | Unknown | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 127 | Singapore | Cited as a sentencing framework precedent. |
| Ang Peng Tiam v Singapore Medical Council and another matter | Unknown | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 356 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that not all delays in prosecution merit a discount in sentencing. |
| Ladd v Marshall | Unknown | Yes | [1954] 1 WLR 1489 | England and Wales | Cited for setting out the legal test for the introduction of fresh evidence on appeal. |
| Soh Meiyun v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 299 | Singapore | Cited for clarifying the Ladd v Marshall test in the context of criminal matters. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohd Ariffan bin Mohd Hassan | Unknown | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 544 | Singapore | Cited for clarifying the Ladd v Marshall test in the context of criminal matters. |
| Chew Soo Chun v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Unknown | Yes | [2016] 2 SLR 78 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a mental disorder which sets in after the commission of the offence is generally irrelevant to sentence. |
| Chee Siok Chin v Minister for Home Affairs | Unknown | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 582 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that proceedings which are manifestly groundless or without foundation abuse the process of the court. |
| BLV v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 726 | Singapore | Cited for the application of the doctrine of abuse of process in criminal proceedings, specifically in applications to adduce fresh evidence on appeal. |
| Anita Damu v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2020] 3 SLR 825 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an expert’s opinion must be scrutinised for factual and logical cogency. |
| Kanagaratnam Nicholas Jens v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2019] 5 SLR 887 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that experts cannot merely present conclusions without also presenting the underlying evidence and the analytical process by which the conclusions are reached. |
| Mehra Radhika v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 96 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that expert medical reports must be objective and not read like a fact-finding report. |
| Public Prosecutor v Setho Oi Lin @ Setho Irene | District Court | Yes | [2018] SGDC 82 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a psychiatric illness may be relevant to sentencing where it is causally linked to the commission of the offence, warrants the exercise of judicial mercy, or has a gravely disproportionate impact on the offender. |
| Pacific Recreation Pte Ltd v S Y Technology Inc and another appeal | Unknown | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 491 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that solicitors have a duty to properly instruct the experts that they appoint. |
| Zhou Tong and others v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2010] 4 SLR 534 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that filing patently unmeritorious appeals on behalf of clients can amount to improper conduct by a solicitor. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 377 | Singapore | Cited for affirming the rule in Zhou Tong that the filing of patently unmeritorious applications on behalf of one’s client in the context of criminal proceedings can amount to improper conduct by a solicitor. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 r 9 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 300(c) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 34 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 326 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Fresh evidence
- Abuse of process
- Adjustment disorder
- Psychiatric report
- Sentencing
- Professional impropriety
- Inordinate delay
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal motion
- Fresh evidence
- Abuse of process
- Sentencing appeal
- Professional misconduct
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Evidence
- Professional Conduct