Sim Chon Ang Jason v Public Prosecutor: Application to Adduce Further Evidence in Cheating Trial

Jason Sim Chon Ang applied to the High Court of Singapore for permission to adduce further evidence in his ongoing District Court trial for cheating offenses. Tay Yong Kwang JCA dismissed the application, holding that it was procedurally improper to seek such an order from the High Court while the trial was ongoing in the District Court. The court emphasized that the application should first be made to the trial judge.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Application to adduce further evidence in a cheating trial was dismissed due to procedural impropriety. The High Court held that the application should have been made to the trial court first.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyCosts awardedWon
Kevin Yong of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Tan Zhi Hao of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Jason Sim Chon AngApplicantIndividualApplication dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tay Yong KwangJustice of the Court of AppealYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Kevin YongAttorney-General’s Chambers
Tan Zhi HaoAttorney-General’s Chambers
Phipps JonathanLegalStandard LLP

4. Facts

  1. The applicant faced five charges under s 420 of the Penal Code for cheating three banks.
  2. The applicant was a director, CEO, and founder of Jason Parquet Specialist (Singapore) Pte Ltd (JPS).
  3. JPS allegedly submitted fictitious invoices and delivery orders to obtain loans.
  4. The trial began on 30 September 2020 and took place over 27 days.
  5. The applicant sought to adduce further evidence from Mr. Alexander Chua Hock Yew, JPS’ former relationship manager at DBS.
  6. The applicant made several prior applications to the DJ for the Witness to give evidence at the Trial.
  7. The District Judge rejected those applications.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Sim Chon Ang Jason v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 30 of 2022, [2022] SGHC 235

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Scheme to cheat banks commenced.
Jason Parquet Holdings Limited publicly listed on the Singapore Exchange’s Catalist board.
Scheme to cheat banks ended.
DAC 924315 to 942319 of 2018 hearing.
Trial began.
Prosecution closed its case.
First application made for the Witness to give evidence at the Trial.
Both the applicant and Tjioe closed their cases for the defence.
Final application brought on for the Witness to give evidence at the Trial.
CM 30 was filed by the applicant.
Hearing date.
Judgment date.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Admissibility of Further Evidence
    • Outcome: The High Court held that the application to adduce further evidence should have been made to the trial court first.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Procedural impropriety
      • Circumventing trial court
  2. High Court's Jurisdiction
    • Outcome: The High Court clarified that it did not have the power to summon a person as a witness in proceedings pending before a lower court.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Appellate jurisdiction
      • Revisionary jurisdiction
      • Original jurisdiction
    • Related Cases:
      • [2021] 4 SLR 719

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Permission to adduce further evidence

9. Cause of Actions

  • Cheating under s 420 of the Penal Code
  • Violation of s 76(1)(a)(ii)(B) of the Companies Act

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Appeals

11. Industries

  • Banking
  • Finance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Christanto Radius v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2012] 3 SLR 749SingaporeCited regarding the High Court's statutory power of review over a District Judge’s decision to refuse the grant of bail.
Sim Cheng Hui and another v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[1998] 1 SLR(R) 670SingaporeCited to reinforce that s 283 of the Criminal Procedure Code is for a trial judge to exercise.
Xu Yuanchen v Public Prosecutor and another matterHigh CourtYes[2021] 4 SLR 719SingaporeCited for the principle that revisionary jurisdiction may only be invoked when there is an error in the decision or order made by the judge below and material and serious injustice has resulted.
Public Prosecutor v Hoo Chang ChwenN/AYes[1962] MLJ 284N/ACited for the broad prohibition of appeals against interlocutory rulings.
Yap Keng Ho v Public ProsecutorN/AYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 259N/ACited to highlight that frequent interruptions of a trial disrupt the flow and dignity of a trial.
Azman bin Jamaludin v Public ProsecutorN/AYes[2012] 1 SLR 615N/ACited to caution against disrupted and fractured criminal trials which create unacceptable delays in their final disposal.
Ng Chye Huey and another v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 106SingaporeCited as a caution against revisionary intervention at the interlocutory stage.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Criminal Procedure Code 2010Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore
Criminal Procedure CodeSingapore
Criminal Procedure CodeSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Criminal Procedure Code
  • Further evidence
  • Interlocutory matter
  • Revisionary jurisdiction
  • Trial court
  • Change in circumstances
  • Frivolous motion

15.2 Keywords

  • Criminal Motion
  • Further Evidence
  • Criminal Procedure Code
  • High Court
  • District Court
  • Cheating
  • Trial

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure
  • Evidence