Skip to main content

The High Court's power of revision - Yunani v PP (2008)

Yunani bin Abdul Hamid v Public Prosecutor [2008] SGHC 58,

In 1992, Yunani was stopped at a PSA Container Gate for a routine check. His motorcycle pillion passenger, Aziz was carrying a knapsack. The knapsack contained 913.1g of cannabis.

Yunani panicked and sped off on his motorcycle with Aziz. Later that day,Yunani surrendered himself to the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) and told them he had not known about the cannabis. Aziz, however, remained at large for the next 15 years.

Eventually, the Prosecution felt that it was unjust to keep Yunani in remand, given the disappearance of Aziz and the evidential gaps in the case against the applicant. But since he was the rider of the motorcycle and had fled, Yunani was given a discharge not amounting to an acquittal
In 2007 Aziz was arrested, and later that day, the police re-arrested Yunani. Aziz claimed that the knapsack and cannabis belonged to Yunani, but Yunani continued to maintain his innocence.

Aziz decided to plead guilty to get a lower sentence. Yunani initially wanted to claim trial but because he was under pressure, and did not have good legal advice, he also pleaded guilty. He was then sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane.

Yunani wanted to appeal, but because he had pleaded guilty, he could not appeal against conviction, he could only appeal against sentence. His new lawyer applied to the High Court for revision of the case.

The High Court judge Justice VK Rajah held

(1) The High Court could use its power of revision if there was serious injustice

(2) Serious injustice included pressures faced by the offender to plead guilty … such that the offender did not have the freedom to choose between pleading guilty and pleading not guilty

He referred the case back to the State Court for retrial.


Popular posts from this blog

Chapelton v Barry UDC (Exclusion Clauses)

Mr Chapelton went to a beach run by Barry UDC. See saw deckchairs. A notice next to them said,
"Barry Urban District Council. Cold Knap. Hire of chairs 2d. per session of 3 hours ... tickets should be obtained from attendants."  He got two chairs from an attendant, paid the money and got two tickets. He put them in his pocket. On the ticket was written,
"Available for three hours. Time expires where indicated by cut-off and should be retained and shown on request. The council will not be liable for any accident or damage arising from the hire of the chair."  When he sat on the chair it gave way and he was injured. Would the exemption clause work? The Court of Appeal held that Barry UDC made an offer when the chairs were on display, Mr Chapelton accepted when he picked up the chairs from the defendant, and the ticket was merely a receipt of the contract, so the exclusion clause could not be incorporated as a term, because it was too late.

A Picture Speaks a Thousand Words to Show Lee Kuan Yew's Impact on Singapore Economy

He led the team that turned mudflats into a metropolis, but could one graphic describe the impact that the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew had on Singapore? This one from the Economist does a pretty good job of representing it.

The underlying philosophy of the Visual Law School site is that complex issues and concepts (such as the law and legal principles) can be made more understandable by showing them in a visual or graphical format. This infographic will not replace the reams of text and hours of eulogies that will mark the life and impact the Mr Lee had on our country. But it is a relatively fair and balanced window into the story that helps to put that impact into a global and historical perspective. Read the full article at The Economist
Rest in Peace, Mr Lee, we will always be grateful for what you did.

Lim Geok Hian v Lim Guan Chin (Misrepresentation)

Lim Geok Hian (brother) convinced his sister Lim Guan Chin to sign a contract that : if their father bequeathed the family home to either of them, they would share the home equally instead. Actually, Lim Geok Hian already knew that his father had written a will bequeathing the entire house to Lim Guan Chin. But he expressedly or impliedly represented to her that it was likely that he would inherit the house. When the father died, Lim Geok Hian tried to enforce the contract. The Court of Appeal affirmed that since his sister was induced by the fraudulent misrepresentation to sign the contract, it could be set aside