BWJ v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Review Application Based on Change in Law
BWJ applied for permission to review the Court of Appeal's decision in CA/CCA 20/2020, where he was convicted of aggravated rape. He argued that the Indian Supreme Court decision of Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda & Anr v State of Gujarat constituted a change in the law regarding appellate interference with acquittals. Justice of the Court of Appeal Tay Yong Kwang dismissed the application, finding that the Indian Supreme Court decision did not constitute a change in law and that BWJ was merely seeking a second appeal.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Criminal Motion dismissed summarily.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
BWJ seeks review of his aggravated rape conviction based on a change in law. The Court of Appeal dismisses the application, finding no legitimate basis for review.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Motion Dismissed | Won | Selene Yap of Attorney-General’s Chambers Ng Yiwen of Attorney-General’s Chambers Yvonne Poon of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| BWJ | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Selene Yap | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ng Yiwen | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Yvonne Poon | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Hua Yew Fai Terence | Rex Legal Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- BWJ seeks permission to review the Court of Appeal’s decision in CA/CCA 20/2020.
- In CCA 20, BWJ was convicted of aggravated rape and sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane.
- BWJ claims a change in the law arising from the Indian Supreme Court decision of Bhupatbhai.
- BWJ argues that the change relates to when an appellate court may interfere with an order of acquittal.
- The High Court acquitted BWJ of the charge of aggravated rape.
- The Court of Appeal found the High Court’s decision to acquit BWJ was “wholly against the total weight of the objective evidence”.
- BWJ claimed trial to a charge of aggravated rape under s 375(1)(a) and punishable under s 375(3)(a)(i) of the Penal Code for raping the victim on 6 August 2017.
5. Formal Citations
- BWJ v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 24 of 2024, [2024] SGCA 25
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Court of Appeal's decision in CA/CCA 20/2020 ('CCA 20') allowed the Prosecution’s appeal against BWJ’s acquittal on a charge of aggravated rape, set aside the acquittal and convicted BWJ on the charge. | |
| Alleged rape of V by BWJ. | |
| BWJ’s affidavit dated. | |
| Affidavit of BWJ’s counsel dated. | |
| BWJ’s written submissions dated. | |
| Prosecution’s written submissions dated. | |
| Date of Tay Yong Kwang JCA. | |
| Judgment date. |
7. Legal Issues
- Permission for Criminal Review
- Outcome: The Court held that BWJ failed to meet the requirements for permission to be granted to make a review application under the CPC.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Sufficient material for review
- Change in the law
- Related Cases:
- [2020] 2 SLR 1175
- [2024] 4 S.C.R. 322
- Appellate Interference with Acquittal
- Outcome: The Court found that the principles governing appellate intervention are well-settled and the Indian Supreme Court decision did not change the law.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Perversity of acquittal
- Re-appreciation of evidence
- Related Cases:
- [2024] 4 S.C.R. 322
- [2007] 2 SLR(R) 983
8. Remedies Sought
- Review of Court of Appeal Decision
- Setting aside conviction
9. Cause of Actions
- Aggravated Rape
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appellate Practice
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v BWJ | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] 1 SLR 477 | Singapore | Sets out the Court of Appeal’s grounds of decision in CA/CCA 20/2020, the original appeal where BWJ was convicted of aggravated rape. |
| Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda & Anr v State of Gujarat | Supreme Court | Yes | [2024] 4 S.C.R. 322 | India | Cited by BWJ as establishing a change in the law regarding when an appellate court may interfere with an order of acquittal made by a lower court. |
| Kreetharan s/o Kathireson v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 1175 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an applicant must disclose a “legitimate basis for the exercise of the [appellate court’s] power of review” in order to be granted permission to make a review application under s 394H(1) of the CPC. |
| Sakthivel Punithavathi v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 983 | Singapore | Cited for the principles governing appellate intervention in criminal matters. |
| Loh Der Ming Andrew v Koh Tien Hua | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 3 SLR 1417 | Singapore | Cited regarding the deference commanded by a trial judge when it comes to drawing inferences from established, objective facts. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal Review
- Aggravated Rape
- Appellate Intervention
- Acquittal
- Change in Law
- Sufficient Material
- Miscarriage of Justice
- Perverse Acquittal
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Law
- Rape
- Appeal
- Singapore
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Review Application
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Law | 95 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Sentencing | 85 |
| Review | 75 |
| Natural justice | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Appeals
- Sentencing