Gaiyathiri d/o Murugayan v Public Prosecutor: Appeal to Adduce Fresh Evidence on Sentence for Culpable Homicide
Gaiyathiri d/o Murugayan, the applicant, appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore against her sentence for culpable homicide. She sought to adduce further evidence and compel disclosure of additional materials. The Court of Appeal, comprising Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA, Judith Prakash JCA, and Steven Chong JCA, dismissed the motion, finding no legal or factual basis to order disclosure or admit further evidence. The court held that the applicant's allegations against her former counsel did not relate to the reliefs sought and that the additional materials were either irrelevant or not in the respondent's possession.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Criminal Motion dismissed in its entirety.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex Tempore Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal dismissed Gaiyathiri's application to adduce further evidence in her appeal against her sentence for culpable homicide, finding no basis for disclosure.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Motion Dismissed | Won | Senthilkumaran Sabapathy of Attorney-General’s Chambers Mohamed Faizal of Attorney-General’s Chambers Sean Teh of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Gaiyathiri d/o Murugayan | Applicant | Individual | Motion Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Senthilkumaran Sabapathy | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mohamed Faizal | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sean Teh | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The applicant pleaded guilty to 28 offences under the Penal Code, including culpable homicide.
- The applicant sought disclosure of additional materials and leave to adduce further evidence on appeal.
- The applicant alleged that her former counsel had not properly represented her.
- The applicant claimed a further psychiatric report existed that disagreed with a prior assessment.
- The Singapore Prison Service stated they would have provided medical records if requested.
- The applicant's children's medical records were provided to her on 5 October 2021.
5. Formal Citations
- Gaiyathiri d/o Murugayan v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 3 of 2022, [2022] SGCA 38
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant pleaded guilty before a judge in the General Division of the High Court. | |
| Judge sentenced the applicant. | |
| Applicant sought leave to file an affidavit in reply. | |
| Court granted the applicant’s request to file a reply affidavit. | |
| Mr. Chen applied to discharge himself as counsel. | |
| Applicant filed her reply affidavit. | |
| Court of Appeal delivered the judgment. | |
| Former Counsel represented the applicant from this date. | |
| Former Counsel discharged. | |
| Applicant was provided with her children's medical records. |
7. Legal Issues
- Adducing Fresh Evidence
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application to adduce further evidence, as the alleged report had not been put before the court and there was no evidence it existed.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1954] 1 WLR 1489
- [2018] 1 SLR 544
- [2014] 3 SLR 299
- [2021] SGCA 90
- Disclosure
- Outcome: The court found no basis to order disclosure of the additional materials, as the respondent was not the proper party against whom such an order could be made, there was no legal basis for the applicant to seek disclosure, and the materials were not relevant to the proceedings.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2013] 2 SLR 1227
- [2011] 3 SLR 1205
- [2020] 1 SLR 984
8. Remedies Sought
- Disclosure of documents
- Leave to adduce further evidence
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Dinesh s/o Rajantheran | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 1289 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an accused person may be allowed to qualify or retract their plea of guilt if the relevant grounds are made out. |
| Li Weiming v Public Prosecutor and other matters | High Court | Yes | [2013] 2 SLR 1227 | Singapore | Cited to show that the Criminal Case Disclosure regime only provides for pre-trial criminal discovery. |
| Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 1205 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Prosecution’s obligation to disclose to the Defence unused material only subsists while there remains a dispute over the accused person’s guilt or innocence. |
| Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 984 | Singapore | Cited for the Prosecution’s obligation to disclose to the Defence a statement of a “material witness” not called as a Prosecution witness. |
| Public Prosecutor v UI | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 500 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is little place for forgiveness in the field of criminal law. |
| Ladd v Marshall | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1954] 1 WLR 1489 | England and Wales | Cited for the threefold requirements in an application to adduce further evidence in criminal proceedings. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohd Ariffan bin Mohd Hassan | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 544 | Singapore | Cited for the threefold requirements in an application to adduce further evidence in criminal proceedings. |
| Soh Meiyun v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 299 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where an application is made by the accused person to admit further evidence favourable to him, the requirement of non-availability is applied in an attenuated manner. |
| Miya Manik v Public Prosecutor and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 90 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Ladd v Marshall requirement of non-availability is not dispensed with in respect of applications to adduce further evidence that are made by accused persons. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 304(a) of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Culpable homicide
- Disclosure
- Further evidence
- Psychiatric assessment
- Plea of guilt
- Mitigation plea
15.2 Keywords
- criminal motion
- culpable homicide
- fresh evidence
- disclosure
- psychiatric assessment
- plea of guilt
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Adduction of new evidence | 80 |
| Criminal Procedure | 75 |
| Sentencing | 75 |
| Criminal Law | 60 |
| Appeal | 60 |
| Evidence | 50 |
| Disclosure of Information | 40 |
| Criminal Revision | 40 |
| Psychiatry | 30 |
| Witnesses | 20 |
| Adverse Inference | 20 |
| Duty of Candour | 15 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Evidence