Sakthivel Sivasurian v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Revision on Bail Revocation for Breaching Curfew
Sakthivel Sivasurian applied for criminal revision against the Public Prosecutor, challenging the District Judge's decision to revoke his bail due to breaches of curfew conditions. The High Court of Singapore, presided over by Justice Vincent Hoong, dismissed the application, finding that the District Judge had the power to revoke bail and that the decision was justified given the breaches and deceptive conduct. The court also upheld the rejection of the application to be reoffered bail.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Criminal revision regarding the revocation of bail for Sakthivel Sivasurian due to curfew breaches. The High Court dismissed the application, upholding the District Judge's decision.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sakthivel Sivasurian | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | Yong Hong Kit Clement |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed | Won | R Arvindren |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Vincent Hoong | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Yong Hong Kit Clement | Yeo Marini Law Corporation |
| R Arvindren | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The Applicant was charged with offences under ss 323A and 267B of the Penal Code and reg 6(1) of the COVID-19 Regulations.
- The Applicant was initially released on bail but his bail was revoked due to breaches of his bail conditions.
- The Applicant breached his curfew on at least two occasions by leaving his mobile phone at home and going out.
- The Applicant lied to the Police and the court about his breaches of curfew.
- The Applicant applied for bail to be reoffered to him, citing material changes of circumstances and new facts.
- The District Judge rejected the Applicant’s application to be reoffered bail.
5. Formal Citations
- Sakthivel Sivasurian v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Revision No 1 of 2023, [2023] SGHC 184
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant first charged in the State Courts | |
| Applicant arrested for alleged offence under s 267B of the PC | |
| Applicant charged in the State Courts | |
| Applicant successfully applied to vary the hours of his curfew | |
| First breach of curfew occurred | |
| Second breach of curfew occurred | |
| Applicant arrested for breaching his bail conditions | |
| District Judge revoked the Applicant’s bail | |
| Applicant applied for bail to be reoffered to him | |
| District Judge rejected the Applicant’s application to be reoffered bail | |
| Applicant filed a petition for criminal revision | |
| Hearing of the parties | |
| Decision issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Revocation of Bail
- Outcome: The court held that the District Judge had the power to revoke the applicant's bail under s 103(4) of the CPC and that the decision was justified.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Breach of bail conditions
- Power of District Judge to revoke bail
- Related Cases:
- [2023] SGHC 184
- [2015] 3 SLR 447
- Criminal Revision
- Outcome: The court held that the application for criminal revision was properly brought but ultimately dismissed it.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Standard of review for criminal revision
- Exercise of High Court's revisionary powers
- Related Cases:
- [2022] SGHC 287
- [2015] 2 SLR 1
- [2015] 3 SLR 447
- [2015] 2 SLR 78
- [1995] 3 SLR(R) 929
- [1998] 3 SLR(R) 196
- [2008] 3 SLR(R) 383
8. Remedies Sought
- Release on bail
- Expedited examination of the record of proceedings
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Muhammad Feroz Khan bin Abdul Kader v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 287 | Singapore | Cited for the High Court's revisionary jurisdiction and the threshold requirement of 'serious injustice'. |
| Ewe Pang Kooi v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 672 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a criminal motion brought under s 97 of the CPC. |
| Public Prosecutor v Sollihin bin Anhar | High Court | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for the High Court's revisionary powers over bail decisions. |
| Public Prosecutor v Sollihin bin Anhar | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 447 | Singapore | Cited for the High Court's revisionary powers over bail decisions. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yang Yin | High Court | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 78 | Singapore | Cited for the principles governing the exercise of the High Court's revisionary powers and factors to consider when granting bail. |
| Ang Poh Chuan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 929 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of 'serious injustice' in the context of revisionary jurisdiction. |
| Knight Glenn Jeyasingam v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 196 | Singapore | Cited for the requirement of 'grave and serious injustice' for court intervention on revision. |
| Yunani bin Abdul Hamid v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 383 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the High Court's revisionary powers should be exercised sparingly. |
| Public Prosecutor v Loqmanul Hakim bin Buang | High Court | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 753 | Singapore | Cited for the balancing act between public interest and individual liberty in bail decisions. |
| S Selvamsylvester v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2005] 4 SLR(R) 409 | Singapore | Cited for the burden of showing why bail should be extended to a person charged with non-bailable offences. |
| Public Prosecutor v Wee Swee Siang | Unknown | Yes | [1948] MLJ 114 | Malaysia | Cited for the non-exhaustive list of considerations for granting bail. |
| Mohamed Razip and others v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [1987] SLR(R) 525 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a bail decision is interlocutory and non-appealable. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Criminal Procedure Rules 2018 r 5(1)(h) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Control Order) Regulations 2020 | Singapore |
| COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Bail
- Revocation
- Curfew
- Criminal Revision
- Breach of bail conditions
- District Judge
- High Court
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Serious injustice
15.2 Keywords
- Bail Revocation
- Criminal Revision
- Breach of Curfew
- Singapore High Court
- Criminal Procedure Code
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Bail
- Revision
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing
- Revision of proceedings
- Bail