PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v ADAM BIN MOHAMED NOOR

Q: Which legislation does [2024] SGHC 25 consider?

The judgment refers to Workplace Safety and Health Act (Cap 354A). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2024] SGHC 25 High Court (General Division) 31 January 2024 HC/MA 9071/2023/01 55 min read

3 cases cited

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	31 January 2024
Judge	Vincent Hoong
Charges / claim	Criminal Procedure and Sentencing, Criminal Law
Counsel	Abdul Rahman Law Corporation, Attorney-General's Chambers, A M Mohamed Riasudeen, Gregory Gan, Mumtaj Banu d/o Abdul Kalam Azad, Yamuna d/o Balakrishnan

Source: [2024] SGHC 25, High Court (General Division), decided 31 January 2024 — eLitigation. Updated 3 July 2026.

Catchwords

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Appeal Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing Criminal Law — Statutory offences — Workplace Safety and Health Act

Practice Areas

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing Criminal Law

Judges (1)

Vincent Hoong Delivered

Counsel (6)

Abdul Rahman Law Corporation Firm Attorney-General's Chambers Firm A M Mohamed Riasudeen Counsel Appellant Gregory Gan Counsel Appellant Mumtaj Banu d/o Abdul Kalam Azad Counsel Respondent Yamuna d/o Balakrishnan Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Appellant Adam bin Mohamed Noor Respondent

Case Significance

Public Prosecutor v Adam bin Mohamed Noor [2024] SGHC 25 was a grounds of decision in the General Division of the High Court (Magistrate's Appeal No 9071 of 2023) delivered by Vincent Hoong J on 31 January 2024, following hearings on 25 October and 8 November 2023. The accused, Mr Adam bin Mohamed Noor, claimed trial in the court below to a charge under section 15(3A) of the Workplace Safety and Health Act (Cap 354A, 2009 Rev Ed). He was employed by SP PowerGrid Ltd, a member of the SP Group, as a technical officer, and was tasked with supervising electrical works relating to the decommissioning of a substation. During those works, Mr Asogan s/o Suparamaniam was electrocuted while decommissioning an electrical cable and died. The charge alleged that the accused did a negligent act at work by allowing the deceased and other workers to carry out electrical works unsupervised on the de-energised cable without ensuring it remained de-energised. The catchwords address criminal procedure and sentencing (appeal and sentencing) and a statutory offence under the Workplace Safety and Health Act.

[2024] SGHC 25 explained

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v ADAM BIN MOHAMED NOOR ([2024] SGHC 25) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 31 January 2024. It is categorised under Criminal Procedure and Sentencing and Criminal Law. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2024] SGHC 25 about?

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v ADAM BIN MOHAMED NOOR ([2024] SGHC 25) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Appeal”, “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing”, and “Criminal Law — Statutory offences — Workplace Safety and Health Act”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2024] SGHC 25 consider?

The judgment refers to Workplace Safety and Health Act (Cap 354A). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

Summary

Adam bin Mohamed Noor, a technical officer employed by SP PowerGrid Ltd, was charged under s 15(3A) of the Workplace Safety and Health Act with doing a negligent act at work in connection with the death of a worker who was electrocuted while decommissioning an electrical cable, and was acquitted by the District Judge; the Prosecution appealed against the acquittal. Vincent Hoong J found that the District Judge had erred, allowed the Prosecution's appeal, and convicted the accused on the charge. The court assessed his culpability as at the higher end of the moderate range and imposed a sentence of ten months' imprisonment.

What charge was at issue in Public Prosecutor v Adam bin Mohamed Noor [2024] SGHC 25?

The accused, Adam bin Mohamed Noor, faced a charge under section 15(3A) of the Workplace Safety and Health Act for a negligent act at work, after a worker, Mr Asogan s/o Suparamaniam, was electrocuted and died during substation decommissioning works he supervised at SP PowerGrid Ltd.

What kind of proceeding was [2024] SGHC 25?

It was a Magistrate's Appeal (No 9071 of 2023) heard in the General Division of the High Court by Vincent Hoong J, with the catchwords indicating it concerned criminal procedure and sentencing on appeal in a Workplace Safety and Health Act prosecution.