Liew Michael Marcus v Public Prosecutor: Unlawful Assembly, Common Object, Voluntarily Causing Hurt

In Liew Michael Marcus v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard appeals from Michael Marcus Liew, Cheo Lye Choon, Tok Meng Chong, Ng Wan Seng, and Chan Hui Yi Regina against their convictions under Section 147 of the Penal Code for being members of an unlawful assembly with the common object of voluntarily causing hurt. The court, presided over by Vincent Hoong J, allowed the appeals, finding insufficient evidence of a common object to cause hurt to all victims. Altered charges under Section 323 of the Penal Code were framed, and the appellants were convicted accordingly. Appeals against sentences for separate charges were dismissed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed in Part

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court allows appeals against conviction for rioting due to lack of evidence of common object to cause hurt. Altered charges framed.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyAppeal Allowed in PartPartial
Zhou Yang of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Yang Ziliang of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Michael Marcus LiewAppellantIndividualConvicted of altered charge under s 323 of the Penal CodePartial
Cheo Lye ChoonAppellantIndividualConvicted of altered charge under s 323 read with s 34 of the Penal CodePartial
Tok Meng ChongAppellantIndividualConvicted of altered charge under s 323 read with s 34 of the Penal CodePartial
Ng Wan SengAppellantIndividualConvicted of altered charge under s 323 of the Penal CodePartial
Chan Hui Yi ReginaAppellantIndividualConvicted of altered charge under s 323 of the Penal CodePartial
Maureen Baricautro MamucodOtherIndividual
G K Karunan GeorgeOtherIndividual
K Amuthan DanielOtherIndividual
Sreelatha ThankamaniammaOtherIndividual

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Vincent HoongJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Zhou YangAttorney-General’s Chambers
Yang ZiliangAttorney-General’s Chambers
Tan Joon Liang JosephusInvictus Law Corporation
Cory Wong Guo YeanInvictus Law Corporation
Wee Heng Yi AdrianLighthouse Law LLC
Lynette Chang Huay QinLighthouse Law LLC
Sunil SudheesanQuahe Woo & Palmer LLC
Khoo Hui-Hui JoyceQuahe Woo & Palmer LLC
Ngiam Hian Theng Diana (Yan Xianting)Quahe Woo & Palmer LLC
Tanaya Shekhar KinjavdekarTrident Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. Five appellants and four victims were at a bar on the evening of 30 April 2017.
  2. The appellants and victims left the bar separately in the early hours of 1 May 2017.
  3. Three incidents of violence took place at an open carpark near the bar.
  4. Michael kicked George’s car, leading to a series of assaults.
  5. Daniel alighted from the car and was kicked by Michael.
  6. George was assaulted by Wan Seng, Lye Choon, Meng Chong, and Michael.
  7. Regina assaulted Maureen and Sreelatha.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Liew Michael Marcus v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9024 of 2020, [2024] SGHC 4
  2. Cheo Lye Choon v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9025 of 2020, [2024] SGHC 4
  3. Tok Meng Chong v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9026 of 2020, [2024] SGHC 4
  4. Ng Wan Seng v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9027 of 2020, [2024] SGHC 4
  5. Chan Hui Yi Regina v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9028 of 2020, [2024] SGHC 4
  6. Public Prosecutor v Michael Marcus Liew and others, , [2020] SGDC 104
  7. Public Prosecutor v Michael Marcus Liew and others, , [2023] SGDC 6

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Appellants and victims met at Frienzie Bar and Bistro.
Incidents of violence occurred at an open carpark near the bar.
Magistrate’s Appeals Nos 9024, 9025, 9026, 9027 and 9028 of 2020 filed.
Hearing on appeal.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Unlawful Assembly
    • Outcome: The court found that the evidence did not support a finding that there had been a common object among the appellants to cause hurt to the victims.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1996] 1 SLR(R) 758
      • [2005] 1 SLR(R) 784
  2. Voluntarily Causing Hurt
    • Outcome: The court convicted the appellants of altered charges under s 323 of the Penal Code for voluntarily causing hurt.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Admissibility of Fresh Evidence on Appeal
    • Outcome: The court granted the applications to adduce fresh evidence on appeal.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1954] 1 WLR 1489
      • [2017] 1 SLR 505
  4. Intoxication as a Defence
    • Outcome: The court found that Michael and Lye Choon had not been so intoxicated that they could not have formed the necessary criminal intent.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against conviction
  2. Appeal against sentence

9. Cause of Actions

  • Voluntarily Causing Hurt
  • Being a member of an unlawful assembly

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Ladd v MarshallNot specifiedYes[1954] 1 WLR 1489England and WalesCited for the conditions to be satisfied for fresh evidence to be adduced on appeal.
Lim Thiam Hor and another v Public ProsecutorNot specifiedYes[1996] 1 SLR(R) 758SingaporeCited for the principles relating to the finding of a common object in unlawful assembly cases.
Pannirselvam s/o Anthonisamy v Public ProsecutorNot specifiedYes[2005] 1 SLR(R) 784SingaporeCited for restating the key principles relating to the finding of a common object.
Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syed MallikNot specifiedYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 601SingaporeCited for the principle that findings of fact made by a trial judge should not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong or against the weight of the evidence.
Iskandar bin Rahmat v Public Prosecutor and other mattersCourt of AppealYes[2017] 1 SLR 505SingaporeCited for the less restrictive approach to be adopted in criminal cases when considering fresh evidence on appeal.
Public Prosecutor v Chia Kee ChenNot specifiedYes[2018] 2 SLR 249SingaporeCited for the minimum requirements of an expert report.
Teo Ghim Heng v Public ProsecutorNot specifiedYes[2022] 1 SLR 1240SingaporeCited for the principle that an accused person may not always be the best source of information about his own physical and mental state.
Imran bin Mohd Arip v Public Prosecutor and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2021] SGCA 91SingaporeCited for the principle that the power to frame altered charges under s 390(4) of the CPC must be exercised sparingly.
Public Prosecutor v Koon Seng Construction Pte LtdNot specifiedYes[1996] 1 SLR(R) 112SingaporeCited for the principle that the amendment will not cause any injustice, or affect the presentation of the evidence, in particular, the accused’s defence.
Sim Wen Yi Ernest v Public ProsecutorNot specifiedYes[2016] 5 SLR 207SingaporeCited for the principle that the amendment will not cause any injustice, or affect the presentation of the evidence, in particular, the accused’s defence.
GDC v Public ProsecutorNot specifiedYes[2020] 5 SLR 1130SingaporeCited for the principle that the amendment will not cause any injustice, or affect the presentation of the evidence, in particular, the accused’s defence.
Wong Tian Jun De Beers v Public ProsecutorNot specifiedYes[2022] 4 SLR 805SingaporeCited for the principle that less weight should be placed on an expert report which was entirely predicated on the truthfulness of the information provided by an accused person without relying on any independent information.
Ng Hoe Leong v Public ProsecutorNot specifiedYes[1998] 1 SLR(R) 337SingaporeCited for the principle that whether an instrument is likely to cause death is a question of fact for the court to decide.
Low Song Chye v Public Prosecutor and another appealNot specifiedYes[2019] 5 SLR 526SingaporeCited for the sentencing framework for offences under s 323 of the Penal Code.
Public Prosecutor v Satesh s/o NavarlanHigh CourtYes[2019] SGHC 119SingaporeCited for the principle that voluntary intoxication is an aggravating factor.
Chung Wan v Public ProsecutorNot specifiedYes[2019] 5 SLR 858SingaporeCited for the principle that voluntary intoxication is an aggravating factor.
Wong Hoi Len v Public ProsecutorNot specifiedYes[2009] 1 SLR(R) 115SingaporeCited for the principle that voluntary intoxication is an aggravating factor.
Public Prosecutor v Lim Chee Yin JordonNot specifiedYes[2018] 4 SLR 1294SingaporeCited for the principle that voluntary intoxication is an aggravating factor.
Arumugam Selvaraj v Public ProsecutorNot specifiedYes[2019] 5 SLR 881SingaporeCited for the principle that an assault by a group as against that by an individual generally entails a greater degree of culpability.
Public Prosecutor v Gao ZhengkunDistrict CourtYes[2019] SGDC 241SingaporeCited as a precedent where a fine was imposed for disorderly behavior.
Public Prosecutor v Loy Xue Song, JeromeDistrict CourtYes[2020] SGDC 168SingaporeCited as a precedent where a fine was imposed for disorderly behavior.
GDC v Public ProsecutorNot specifiedYes[2020] 5 SLR 1130SingaporeCited for the key question was whether the proceedings below would have taken the same course and the evidence led would have been the same had the altered charge been presented at the trial.
Abdul Aziz bin Mohamed Hanib v Public Prosecutor and other appealsHigh CourtYes[2022] SGHC 101SingaporeCited for the principle that unreported decisions lack sufficient particulars to appreciate the reasons for the sentences imposed.
Janardana Jayasankarr v Public ProsecutorNot specifiedYes[2016] 4 SLR 1288SingaporeCited for the reason for placing little, if any, weight on an unreported precedent is that it is unreasoned.
Public Prosecutor v Michael Marcus Liew and othersDistrict CourtYes[2020] SGDC 104SingaporeThe District Judge's grounds of decision in convicting the Appellants of their respective Rioting Charge.
Public Prosecutor v Michael Marcus Liew and othersDistrict CourtYes[2023] SGDC 6SingaporeThe District Judge's grounds of decision in relation to the remittal hearing.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 147 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 323 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 390(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 392 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore
Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Cap 184, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 20 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Cap 184, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 22(1)(a) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Cap 184, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore
Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 6(3) of the Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 353 of the Penal CodeSingapore
Section 324 of the Penal CodeSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Unlawful assembly
  • Common object
  • Voluntarily causing hurt
  • Intoxication
  • Fresh evidence
  • Altered charge
  • Rioting
  • Mens rea

15.2 Keywords

  • Unlawful assembly
  • Common object
  • Voluntarily causing hurt
  • Intoxication
  • Criminal law
  • Singapore
  • Appeal
  • Altered charge

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Criminal Law90
Offences90
Criminal Procedure85
Sentencing80
Unlawful assembly80
Common object75
Appeal70
Evidence70

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure
  • Sentencing
  • Unlawful Assembly
  • Intoxication