Liew Sai Wah v PP

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
Judgment Date12 February 1968
Date12 February 1968
Docket NumberPrivy Council Appeal No 2 of 1967
CourtPrivy Council

[1968] SGPC 2

Privy Council

Viscount Dilhorne

Privy Council Appeal No 2 of 1967

Liew Sai Wah
Plaintiff
and
Public Prosecutor
Defendant

T O Kellock QC and Ian Baillieu (Gester & Turner) for the appellant

T C Le Quesne QC and S N McKinnon (Charles Russell & Co) for the respondent.

L N E Ry Co v Berriman [1946] 1 AC 278 (refd)

Lee A Ba v Public Prosecutor [1968] 1 MLJ 148 (distd)

Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Ordinance 1958 (No 43 of1958)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 132, 1955Rev Ed)s 156

Internal Security Act1960 (Act 18 of 1960) (Malaya) ss 2, 57 (1) (consd)

Criminal Law–Offences–Public safety–Possession of ammunition in security area–Accused arrested at railway station and found to be in possession of grenade bodies–Whether grenade bodies were “ammunition”–Sections 2 and 57 (1) Internal Security Act 1960 (Act 18 of 1960) (Malaya)–Words and Phrases–“Ammunition”–Meaning of–Sections 2 and 57 (1) Internal Security Act 1960 (Act 18 of 1960) (Malaya)–Words and Phrases–“Explosives”–Meaning of–Section 2 Internal Security Act 1960 (Act 18 of 1960) (Malaya)

The appellant was arrested at a railway station and found to be in possession of six hand grenade bodies. The appellant was convicted of having had in his possession, in a security area, “ammunition, to wit six hand grenades, without lawful excuse and without lawful authority”. He was sentenced to death pursuant to s 57 (1) of the Internal Security Act 1960 (Act 18 of 1960) (Malaya) (“the Act”). At the trial, expert evidence was given to the effect that the grenade bodies were not complete grenades and could not explode. The appellant argued that the grenade bodies did not come within the definition of the word “ammunition” in s 2 of the Act.

The High Court ruled against the appellant on the ground that as the grenade bodies were designed to contain a noxious thing, they were “ammunition” within the meaning of the Act. The Federal Court of Malaysia agreed that the grenade bodies came within the definition of “ammunition”.

At the hearing before the Judicial Committee, counsel for the respondent sought leave to advance an additional ground, namely, that if the grenade bodies were not “ammunition”, they were “explosives” as defined in s 2 of the Act, and the appellant was not misled by the error in their description.

Held, allowing the appeal:

(1) The definition of the word “ammunition” in s 2 of the Act is not wide enough to cover and does not cover grenade bodies alone: at [16].

(2) Leave to advance the additional ground for the first time was refused as the ground sought to be advanced would involve the presentation of a very different case to that which the accused presented below: at [20] to [21].

Viscount Dilhorne

(delivering the reasons for the decision of the Board):

1 On 21 March 1965 the appellant got off a train at Singapore Station carrying a B O A C travelling bag. He was stopped by the police and in the bag were found six hand grenade bodies.

2 He was arrested and charged and on 18 November 1965 convicted in the High Court at Singapore of having had in his possession in a security area on 21 March 1965 “ammunition, to wit six hand...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Chia Leong Foo; PP
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 de janeiro de 2000
  • Chng Suan Tze v Minister of Home Affairs and Others and other appeals
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 8 de dezembro de 1988
    ...SLR 650 (refd) Lee Mau Seng v Minister for Home Affairs [1971-1973] SLR (R) 135; [1969-1971] SLR 508 (not folld) Liew Sai Wah v PP [1968-1970] SLR (R) 8; [1969] 1 AC 295 (folld) Liversidge v Sir John Anderson [1942] AC 206 (not folld) Liyanage v The Queen [1967] 1 AC 259 (refd) Magor and St......
  • Public Prosecutor v Sa'ari Jusoh
    • Malaysia
    • Federal Court (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • Transocean Drilling Sdn Bhd
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 2 de setembro de 2022
    ...originality of of this this document document via via eFILING eFILING portal portal 25. In Liew Sai Wah v. PP [1968] 1 MLRA 641; [1968] 2 MLJ 1, Privy Council through the speaking judgment of Viscount Dilhorne J quoted the following passage from Halsbury Laws of England as follows:“It is a ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT