Chan Hiang Leng Colin v Public Prosecutor
 | This is a sandbox for an article that is being edited as part of an educational assignment called the SMU Constitutional and Administrative Law Wikipedia project. If you are not a member of the project, please do not edit this article. To contact the project co-ordinator please leave a message at "User talk:Smuconlaw". |
| Chan Hiang Leng Colin v Public Prosecutor | |
|---|---|
| Court | Singapore High Court |
| Full case name | Chan Hiang Leng Colin and others v Public Prosecutor |
| Decided | 15 September 1994 |
| Citation | [1994] SGHC 207 |
| Case history | |
| Prior action | ??? |
| Related actions | ???Teo Soh Lung v. Minister for Home Affairs [1989] 1 S.L.R.(R) 461, H.C.; [1990] 1 S.L.R.(R) 347, C.A.; Cheng Vincent v. Minister for Home Affairs [1990] 1 S.L.R.(R.) 38, H.C. |
| Court membership | |
| Judge sitting | Yong Pung How C.J. |
| Case opinions | |
| Exercise of discretion by President and Minister for Home Affairs under ss. 8 and 10 of the Internal Security Act subject to judicial review by a court as an objective rather than subjective test applies. | |
The case of Chan Hiang Leng Colin v Public Prosecutor[1]was a Singapore High Court case that dealt with restrictions on an individual’s fundamental liberties under Part IV of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore(link:Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Singapore) when such liberties come into conflict with state or public interests.
The case centred on the restriction of the appellant’s fundamental liberties– his freedom of religion– with the aim of preserving a state interest in national service(ref: Colin Chan, pg 212, pa11 -THIS IS QUOTING HEADNOTES).
This case, which was presided over by Yong Pung How CJ (as he then was), established the Singapore courts’ position that the fundamental liberties of an individual are subject to the interests of the state and the public.
The article should start with a few paragraphs summarizing the main content of the article. It is often easier to write the main content first, then prepare the summary at the end. The article should start with a few paragraphs summarizing the main content of the article. It is often easier to write the main content first, then prepare the summary at the end. • The article should start with a few paragraphs summarizing the main content of the article. It is often easier to write the main content first, then prepare the summary at the end.
FACTS
The appellants, members of the Jehovah Witness were tried and convicted for possession of publications published by the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society (“WTBTS”).
Order 123 prohibited publications related to the doctrine of the Jehovah’s Witnesses sect, and was made pursuant to s 3 of the Undesirable Publications Act (UPA) by the Minister for Culture. Meanwhile, Order 179 ordered the dissolution of the Singapore Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses by the Minister for Home Affairs pursuant to his powers under s 24(1) of the Societies Act (SA).
The appellants were convicted under s 4(2) of the Undesirable Publications Act.
Here is the text that goes into this section of the article. Don't forget to add footnotes![2]
Cite a source in full the first time you refer to it. After that, you can type something like this in the footnote:
Tan, "The Judiciary", p. 29.Chan, The Legal System of Singapore, pp. 41–68.
For more information on citation in Wikipedia, see the "Quick citation guide" on the project home page.
ISSUES RAISED DURING APPEAL
The appellants contended that Order 123 was ultra vires the UPA and Article 15 of the Constitution. However, the trial judge dismissed this contention because he found that he had no jurisdiction to review the Minister’s exercise of discretion.
The trial judge also held that the appellants were entitled to raise the validity of Order 123 as a defence, and that the court was entitled to rule on whether there was a patent invalidity in that order such as to be ultra vires the UPA. However, this would be limited to the examination of the wording of the provisions.
On the facts, the district judge found no patent invalidity in Order 123 and Order 123 was not ultra vires the Constitution, as it concerned the safeguarding of public interest and fell within the scope of s 3(1) of the UPA.
Appeal
The appellants appealed against the trial judge’s decision. They raised the following contentions: Whether Order 179 contravene Art 15(1) of the Constitution or was ultra vires s 24(1) of the Societies Act; and Whether Order 123 contravene Art 15(1) of the Constitution or was ultra vires s 3 of the Undesirable Publications Act.
ISSUES
Whether the High Court could hear Constitutional law issues
Whether Order 179/123 was unconstitutional and ultra vires
Whether Order 123 was ultra vires the UPA or invalid
Whether Order 123 was unreasonable and disproportionate
Whether there was a breach of natural justice
Whether the orders were disproportionate to the interests of the state
Here is the text that goes into this subsection. It is easy to create a bulleted list:
- First entry.
- Second entry.
- Third entry.
You can also create numbered lists:
- First entry.
- Second entry.
- Third entry.
Sub-subsection
Want to quote a passage? Use the {{quote}} template:
This is a passage quoted from a source. Do not quote excessively. • This is a passage quoted from a source. Do not quote excessively. • This is a passage quoted from a source. Do not quote excessively. • This is a passage quoted from a source. Do not quote excessively. • This is a passage quoted from a source. Do not quote excessively.[3]
SUMMARY
statist conclusion.
See also
Notes
- ^ Chan Hiang Leng Colin and others v Public Prosecutor [1994] SGHC 207
- ^ Footnotes are added by enclosing text in the footnote between "ref" tags. Remember to put footnote numbers after punctuation. Use the {{citation}} template, like this: Yeo Tiong Min (1999), "Jurisdiction of the Singapore Courts", in Kevin Y[ew] L[ee] Tan, ed. (ed.), The Singapore Legal System, Singapore: Singapore University Press, pp. 249–296 at 265–266, ISBN 978-9971-69-213-1 (hbk.), ISBN 978-9971-69-212-4 (pbk.)
{{citation}}:|editor=has generic name (help); Unknown parameter|ed=ignored (help). - ^ Remember to add a citation at the end of your quotation.
Further reading
Articles and websites
- Pillai, K. Muralidharan; Luo, Qinghua (2009), "Revisiting the High Court's Revisionary Jurisdiction to Enhance Sentences in Criminal Cases", Singapore Academy of Law Journal, 21: 135–160.
- Singapore court system, Law Society of Singapore, retrieved 26 December 2009.
- Tan, Eugene; Chan, Gary (13 April 2009), "The Judiciary", The Singapore Legal System, Singapore Academy of Law, retrieved 26 December 2009.
Books
- Chan, Helena H[ui-]M[eng] (1995), "The Judiciary", The Legal System of Singapore, Singapore: Butterworths Asia, pp. 41–68, ISBN 978-0-409-99789-7 (pbk.)
{{citation}}: Check|isbn=value: invalid character (help). - Kwek, Mean Luck [et al.], eds. (2006), Hall of Justice: Supreme Court Singapore, Singapore: Supreme Court of Singapore, ISBN 978-981-05-5356-2
{{citation}}:|first=has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link). - Tan, Kevin Y[ew] L[ee] (2011), "Without Fear or Favour: The Judiciary", An Introduction to Singapore's Constitution (rev. ed.), Singapore: Talisman Publishing, pp. 107–131, ISBN 978-981-08-6456-9 (pbk.).
- Tan, Kevin Y[ew] L[ee]; Thio, Li-ann (2010), "The Judiciary", Constitutional Law in Malaysia and Singapore (3rd ed.), Singapore: LexisNexis, pp. 505–630, ISBN 978-981-236-795-2 (hbk.).
- Thian, Yee Sze; Chong, Chin Chin; Lim, Sharon (2002), In Session: Supreme Court Singapore: The Building, her Heritage and her People, Singapore: Supreme Court of Singapore, ISBN 978-981-047-671-7.