Bachoo Mohan Singh v Public Prosecutor and another matter

Tay Yong Kwang J:

[1] These two Criminal Motions have their genesis in Magistrate’s Appeal No. 134 of 2007 (“MA 134”) which was heard by me on 19 January 2009. In MA 134, Mr Bachoo Mohan Singh (“BMS”) appealed against his conviction and sentence pronounced by a district court. I dismissed his appeal against conviction but allowed his appeal against sentence by reducing the imprisonment term from 3 months to one month and adding on a fine of $10,000 (which has since been paid). The grounds of my decision in MA 134 are reported in Bachoo Mohan Singh v PP [2009] 3 SLR 1037 (“the first High Court judgment”).

[2] Following from my decision above, BMS filed Criminal Motion No. 5 of 2009 which was an application pursuant to s 60 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (“SCJA”) (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) to reserve certain questions to the Court of Appeal. I heard and dismissed that Criminal Motion on 9 April 2009. The grounds of my decision are also in the first High Court judgment (from [77] to [82]).

[3] On the same day (9 April 2009), BMS filed Criminal Motion No. 14 of 2009 and Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2009 (see [83] to [86] of the first High Court judgment). These two matters went before the Court of Appeal on 27 August 2009. The Court of Appeal gave its decision on 4 December 2009 (see Bachoo Mohan Singh v PP [2009] SGCA 59). According to the prosecution (in its written submissions before me at [8] and [9]):

[4] In the result, the Court of Appeal (by the majority decision of V K Rajah JA at [87] and Andrew Phang JA at [108], with Choo Han Teck J dissenting) allowed an extension of time for both the prosecution and BMS to apply to me in the High Court for leave to raise to the Court of Appeal questions pursuant to s 60 of the SCJA. The prosecution was given leave to file the questions that it had placed before the Court of Appeal while BMS was given “leave to file the following restated questions of law of public interest” (at [87]):

[5] In the present applications before me, BMS’ Criminal Motion No. 44 of 2009 asks that the following questions of law be reserved for determination by the Court of Appeal:

(a) Section 209 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) makes it an offence for a person to (i) dishonestly (ii) make (iii) before a court of justice (iv) a claim which he (v) knows to be (vi) false. What is the meaning of each of these words and the cumulative purport of this provision in the Singapore context?

(b) In what circumstances would a solicitor be held to have acted dishonestly (causing wrongful gain or wrongful loss, as defined in s 24 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) since if he obtains judgment for a client in an action for payment of a debt or for damages, it is bound to cause a loss to the defendant. When is the gain or loss wrongful or unlawful for this purpose?

(c) In what circumstances is the offence committed: at the point of the filing of the statement of claim or defence in court?

(d) Can a claim before a court ever be held as false if the defendant settles the claim in whole or in part before the claim is tried in court, or if the defendant submits to judgment to the whole or part of the claim?

(e) In what circumstances ought a solicitor decline to accept and/or doubt his client’s instructions before filing pleadings considering that a solicitor has no general duty imposed on him to verify his client’s instructions?

It can be seen that these questions mirror those set out by the Court of Appeal in [4] above save for the Court of Appeal’s observations and prefatory remarks.

[6] The prosecution in its Criminal Motion No. 45 of 2009 sets out the following two questions of law for determination by the Court of Appeal:

If an advocate and solicitor files a statement of claim in court on behalf of his client with the knowledge that the claim is based on facts which are false, and that his client was dishonest in making the false claim, does he commit an offence under section 209 read with section 109 of the Penal Code?

If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, would he still have committed an offence if he was only acting on his client’s instructions?

[8] Where Criminal Motion No. 44 of 2009 is concerned, bearing in mind the majority’s views in the Court of Appeal and guided by their pronouncements, especially their observations at [87] of the judgment (set out in [4] above), I also grant the order sought in Criminal Motion No. 44 of 2009. I would add that whether or not the questions raised by BMS are reserved, they will have to be canvassed in the course of argument and will probably have to be dealt with by the Court of Appeal anyway. As acknowledged by the prosecution, there is some overlap between both parties’ questions in any event.

[9] The existing bail for BMS is extended until further order by the Court of Appeal.

[10] The prosecution has been asked by me to draft a joint referral to the Court of Appeal setting out both parties’ questions.