The following is an excerpt from Yawning Bread

Alex Au/

In a judgement dated 15 March 2011, High Court judge Lai Siu Chiu dismissed the first appeal relating to the constitutional challenge against Section 377A of the Penal Code. This is the law that makes “gross indecency” between two men an offence punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment. The challenge was filed by Tan Eng Hong, who was last year charged under this law after he was caught in a shopping centre toilet with another man.

Represented by M Ravi, Tan’s challenge is still at the procedural stage. Ravi intends to appeal against Justice Lai’s dismissal, so this is nowhere near the end of the story.

Readers will probably need to have the background refreshed.

Background

The incident that resulted in two men, Tan and Chin, being caught in a shopping centre toilet was recounted in the article The 377A hide-and-seek. Both men were charged under Section 377A. On 24 September 2010, M Ravi, acting for Tan, filed an Originating Summons challenging the constitutionality of this law. Mid-October, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) withdrew the 377A charges, substituting charges under Section 294 (obscene act in public) instead.

(Section 294 carries a maximum of 3 months’ jail, a fine, or both; Section 377A carries a maximum jail term of 2 years -Editor)

On 10 November 2010, Chin pleaded guilty and was fined S$3,000. In mid December 2010, Tan too pleaded guilty to Section 294 and was likewise fined S$3,000.

However, since the constitutional challenge to Section 377A had been filed, it still needed to be dealt with on a separate track. At a hearing on 7 December 2010, the Assistant Registrar agreed with the Attorney-General’s application to strike out the case. Tan then appealed to the High Court to reverse the Assistant Registrar’s striking-out decision. The latest decision from the High Court was to affirm that striking out order.

The decision by Justice Lai

The judge framed the issue before her in terms of two main questions (there were two lesser questions):

1. Does Tan Eng Hong have locus standi? That is, is he affected by this law to have a legitimate interest in the issue?

2. Is there a real controversy that requires the court’s attention? Here, the words “real controversy” is used in a way different from ordinary language. It simply means: Is there a matter of importance to be decided by a court?

In a nutshell, the judge found that the answer to the first question was a Yes and to the second question, a No. Thus the Assistant Registrar’s striking-out decision was reaffirmed. It’s a highly technical decision, and for this post, I shall only touch on the key points in laymen’s language. The full text is archived here, thanks to M Ravi.

Locus Standi

On the first question, the court rejected the AGC’s contention that since the original 377A charge had been withdrawn, Tan had no further interest at stake. The court stuck to an established principle that “a citizen should not have to wait until he is prosecuted before he may assert his constitutional rights.”

The court also found that there is a real question as to whether Section 377A is constitutional. It reminded itself that constitutionality is to be tested on two measures: (a) whether “the classification [implied by Section 377A] was founded on an intelligible differentia”, and (b) whether “the differentia bears a rational relation” to the purpose of the law. [Note: this was better explained in the earlier post The management of gays, part 1; see the discussion about page 340.] Insofar as Section 377A criminalises male but not female homosexual intercourse, Tan’s constitutional rights, specifically in relation to Article 12(1) of the Singapore Constitution (“All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law”) might be said to be called into question.

Since there is a constitutional question and Tan as a practising homosexual is at risk of being prosecuted in future (even though the previous charge was withdrawn), the court ruled that he had locus standi to launch this case.

Click here to read on.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

A compassionate “fine” system

Is the govt too zealous in penalising S’poreans?

蓄意伤人及暴力对待员工 明星律师萧丁明认罪!

“明星律师”萧丁明被控对三名女职员动粗,包括伤害他的外甥女和一名女员工,他今早(7月27日)承认两项罪状。 在去年6月7日,萧丁明(47岁)被控蓄意伤人、动粗及触犯防止骚扰法令四项控状。而受害者分别是在他律师事务所工作的外甥女江欣莹(26岁)、女员工陈珠云,以及在其娱乐公司工作的江佩珊(21岁)。 被告今早面控时,承认了蓄意伤人罪和刑事暴力罪,而其他的控状则交法官考量。 萧丁明和女员工争执的音频于2018年5月曝光,事隔一年后,在2019年4月爆出萧丁明殴打两名女员工,包括其外甥女的视频在网上流传出来,引起法律界关注。 据悉,案发时,江佩珊正准备离开公司,前往活动地点,但是被告因不满她没有完成工作而阻拦。被告直接戳着她的额头大骂,甚至推了她。 身在现场的江欣莹目睹了有关过程,基于害怕受到同样遭遇,就启动了手机的录音功能。 被告之后在办公室内大声询问另一名员工的去向,但是没人回答,被告再次大声斥责。江欣莹过后回应,指该员工在下午4至5时有会议,之后就不知道去向了,但是被告就生气追问,为何刚才不说。 江欣莹当时看着被告趋近,害怕挨打,就双手环胸自保,却不慎碰到被告,令被告顿时失去理智地喊道“你打我,你打我,你竟敢打我”,还把江欣莹推到角落。 推了江欣莹之外,被告还掌掴并怒骂江欣莹,后者也做出反击,甚至打了被告一巴掌。多名在现场的员工都尝试阻拦,江欣莹就趁机跑走了。

South Korea confirms new case of coronavirus; man infected after attending conference in Singapore

South Korea has confirmed two new cases of the deadly coronavirus in…