BWJ v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

[2024] SGCA 25 Court of Appeal 1 August 2024 • CA/CM 24/2024 • 12 min read

4 cases cited Cited by 1 case

Catchwords

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Criminal review — Permission for review

Practice Areas

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing

Judges (1)

Tay Yong Kwang Delivered

Counsel (6)

Attorney-General's Chambers Firm Rex Legal Law Corporation Firm Hua Yew Fai Terence Counsel Applicant Ng Yiwen Counsel Respondent Selene Yap Counsel Respondent Yvonne Poon Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Respondent BWJ Applicant

Case Significance

BWJ v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGCA 25 was a judgment of the Court of Appeal in Criminal Motion No 24 of 2024, heard on 12 July 2024 and decided on 1 August 2024 by Tay Yong Kwang JCA. The applicant's name was redacted as "BWJ", and he sought permission under section 394H(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) to review the Court of Appeal's decision in CA/CCA 20/2020. The applicant was represented by Hua Yew Fai Terence of Rex Legal Law Corporation; the Public Prosecutor was represented by counsel from the Attorney-General's Chambers, including Selene Yap, Ng Yiwen and Yvonne Poon.

The judgment recorded that in CCA 20 the Court of Appeal had allowed the Prosecution's appeal against BWJ's acquittal on a charge of aggravated rape, set aside the acquittal, convicted BWJ, and sentenced him to 13 years' imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane, with grounds reported in Public Prosecutor v BWJ [2023] 1 SLR 477. In the present motion, BWJ claimed there had been a change in the law arising from the Indian Supreme Court decision in Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda & Anr v State of Gujarat [2024] 4 S.C.R. 322, concerning when an appellate court may interfere with an order of acquittal, which he said constituted sufficient material for the Court of Appeal to review its decision.

Summary

In this criminal motion, the applicant (whose name was redacted as BWJ) sought permission to review a Court of Appeal decision that had reversed his acquittal on a charge of aggravated rape, convicted him, and sentenced him to 13 years' imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane. The applicant claimed that an Indian Supreme Court decision constituted a change in the law on when an appellate court may interfere with an acquittal, amounting to sufficient material to justify a review. The court held that there had been no relevant change in the law and that the application merely sought to re-argue the appeal, and it dismissed the application summarily with no order as to costs.

What did BWJ seek in BWJ v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGCA 25?

In [2024] SGCA 25, the applicant BWJ sought permission under section 394H(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 to review the Court of Appeal's decision in CA/CCA 20/2020, which had convicted him of aggravated rape after setting aside his acquittal.

What was BWJ's sentence in the underlying case in [2024] SGCA 25?

In CCA 20, reported as PP v BWJ [2023] 1 SLR 477, the Court of Appeal set aside BWJ's acquittal, convicted him of aggravated rape, and sentenced him to 13 years' imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane.