Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
| DOI | 10.1177/002201838905300405 |
| Published date | 01 November 1989 |
| Date | 01 November 1989 |
| Author | J. A. Coutts |
| Subject Matter | Judicial Committee of the Privy Council |
JUDICIAL
COMMITTEE
OF
THE
PRIVY
COUNCIL
GOING BEHIND
CONVICfIONS
Jeyaretnam v. Singapore Law Society
The Workers' Party of Singapore and one of its supporters owed
money for costs under orders made against them after unsuccessful
litigation. When steps were taken to obtain those costs, the
appellant in Jeyaretnam v. Singapore Law Society [1989] 2 All
E.R.
193 and another officer of the Party advised donors to the
Party to alter the cheques originally made payable to it, so that
those seeking to enforce the costs in question would be unable to
obtain the benefit of those donations. The receiver appointed by
the court requested a copy of the Party's accounts and a statutory
declaration verifying them. Adeclaration was made and the
appellant was charged with an offence (akin to perjury) of making
a false statutory declaration and with other offences relating to
the accounts and to the cheques. The trial judge ruled that there
was no case to answer on the accounts charges, as the purported
statutory declaration lacked the essential words of affirmation and
was therefore technically not a statutory declaration. In the case
of two of the cheques, it was held that there was no evidence that
they were the property of the Party when they were changed,
which change had been with the consent of the drawer in each
case. The third cheque, however, was held to have been changed
after the date of the appointment of the receiver and that the
change had been made with the fraudulent intent of preventing
the property being distributed according to law.
Cross-appeals were brought to the High Court, where the Chief
Justice allowed the appeal against acquittal on the accounts charge
and ordered are-trial, on the ground that the declaration made
by the appellant was a statutory declaration, notwithstanding its
defect in form; and he allowed the appeal in respect of the two
cheque charges on the ground that the evidence accepted by the
trial judge was untrue. The Chief Justice refused to certify that
466
To continue reading
Request your trial