Criminal Procedure 2 – Summary Trial S173 b : Plea of Guilty – Flashcards

If the accused pleads guilty to the charge, whether as originally framed or as amended, the plea shall be recorded and he may be convicted thereon and the court shall pass sentence according to law,

1) After the charge has been read over & explained to the accused, he should be asked "How do you plead, guilty or not guilty?" 2) Accused's answer thus forms a PLEA!

Provided that before a plea of guilty is recorded the Court shall ascertain that the accused understands the nature and consequences of his plea and intends to admit, without qualification, the offence alleged against him.

1) Nature of Pleading Guilty 2) Consequences of Pleading Guilty

1) Understanding that he is admitting fault/guilt of the offence alleged against him 2) Hence the crucial importance of understanding the charge made out against him! •Yusuf v PP - keris** •Lim Yoo Hock v PP - uncensored video tapes** •Heng Kim Khoon v PP - drugs left by friend

1) Charges were read over, explained & understood by the accused. He pleaded guilty thereto. He admitted the facts but in mitigation stated that the exhibits were not his & that they have been left behind by a friend. In spite of this the Court found him guilty & convicted him on 2 charges. 2) On Appeal the C exercised its revision art powers bcs when HENG KIM KHOON in mitigation explained that the drugs were not really in his possession but left there by a friend, he was not in fact making an unqualified guilty plea. He was qualifying his plea. 3) The C is not bound to accept a PG unless the accused has fully understood the charge and the consequence of PG and this can be seen when the PG is unqualified, expressed in unmistakable terms with an understanding of the ingredients of the offense to which he pleads. 4) Taking down a PG is a grave and serious act and Magistrates must exercise an active mind when doing so and basing a conviction there on. One way of doing this is to put the facts to the Accused and see whether he understands them and admits to them bcs a common layperson dies not plead to the statute but to the facts he has been charged with. These efforts must be recorded, for a PG is WITHOUT AMBIGUITY. 5) Bcs HENG KIM KHOON obviously had an erroneous view of law, his PG could not be accepted and the case was remitted for retrial under a different judge.

1) "A PG may be accepted by the court & the accused convicted on it but the court is not bound to accept a PG in ALL cases... The accused is not to be taken at his word when he PG UNLESS the plea is expressed in unmistakable terms with full appreciation of the essential ingredients of the offence... 2) This rule of law is applied with even more stringency when the offence charged is complicated or serious... 3) A PG only amounts to an admission that the accused committed the acts alleged against him and NOT an admission of guilt under a particular section of the Act. 4) ...If he pleads guilty under an erroneous view of the law his conviction cannot stand. In such a case the PG does not avail because he cannot be said to have committed the offence in question in the eyes of the law."

1) Understanding that he the accused: 2) cannot put forward a defence; 3) shall be imposed the punishment according to statutory provisions & judicial principles 4) will not be allowed to APPEAL against his conviction (s 305: Gabriel v PP)

1) Accused must fully understand the consequences of PG which includes being imposed the maximum punishment even though it is not mandatory. Lee Weng Tuck v PP [1989]2MLJ 143*** 2) Includes understanding all possibilities of PG stipulated in the various statutes & sections under which the accused is charged

when an accused pleads guilty, there must be some indication ON RECORD to show that he actually knows NOT ONLY the NATURE of the PG to the charge but also the CONSEQUENCES of his plea which thereby includes the fact that there will be no trial and the maximum sentence may be imposed on him even though such sentence is not mandatory. - per Azmi SCJ

1) LEE WENG TUCK was charged and convicted with two others for trafficking in 5000 g of heroin. The heroin was found into separate cars and a shed nearby to where LEE WENG TUCK and the co-accused had been stoped by the police. 2) Originally LEE WENG TUCK and one other co-accused agree to PG and the judge convicted them. This was a sentence of the death penalty. 3) LEE WENG TUCK and his co-accused later wanted to retract their pleas on the contention that on the day, LEE WENG TUCK was dizzy and ill and needed to sit down whereas the other co-accused did not know he was liable to be sentenced to death. But the trial judge refuse to accept their retraction and amendment of pleas. 4) On appeal, the Apellate C held that despite the presence of Council, it is the C responsibility that the Accused understands the facts that are alleged, the charge had the consequent sentence, that may be applied. If there is doubt as to any of this then the PG should not be accepted.

1) Accused charged under s 33 Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board Act 1987. Pleaded guilty and was fined and Magistrate also ordered his vehicle to be forfeited (van) in accordance to s 51 of the same Act. 2) Counsel applied for High Court to exercise its revisionary powers on the ground that had the accused knew of the possibility of forfeiture he would not have PG 3) High Court could not find any record of any explanation been made to the accused of the forfeiture being a possible consequence of his guilty plea, 4) Accordingly, the conviction & sentence was set aside and a retrial was ordered before another Magistrate.

1) A procedure to be conducted in great care 2) Accused must himself answer, even if using an interpreter 3) Reason? A plea must be made UNCONDITIONALLY & UNEQUIVOCALLY to every aspect of the charge

1) Judge reminded that the taking down of a plea of guilty is a solemn & serious act and Magistrate should devote some time & active thought before they decide to accept the PG & base a conviction thereon. As a matter of practice the record of proceedings should make it clear that the charge has been read, explained & understood 2) "intends to admit, without qualification the offence alleged against him" 3) Best summed up in Cheah Chooi Chuan v PP [1972] 1 MLJ 215 "it is a cardinal principal that any PG must be completely UNRESERVED, UNQUALIFIED & UNEQUIVOCAL " - per Chang Min Tat J •PP v Petrus a/k Belaka - seizure of van*** •Munandu V PP - bicycle*** •Yusuf v PP - keris •Lim Yoo Hock v PP - video-tapes •Margarita de Cruz v PP - passport

Court must ensure/ascertain that: 1) Accused himself who wishes to plead guilty; 2) Accused understands nature & consequences of his plea (which includes being sentenced the maximum punishment even though it is not mandatory); 3) Accused intends to admit without qualification the offence alleged against him. 4) After a plea is taken, the court is obliged to record the plea, but may, at its discretion, postpone recording a conviction thereon until after hearing the accused in mitigation : Maung Min Aung v PP [2001] 5 MLJ 140.*** 5) A plea of guilty to an unknown offence in law is no plea at all : Khor Swee Kim v PP [1953] MLJ 117; Maung Min Aung v PP.***

1) plea of guilty does not of its own force constitute a conviction. It is a further act of the court that will result in one. 2) Even then the word 'conviction' is used in two senses; one in a narrow sense and the other in a wider sense. 3) In the narrower sense a conviction does not occur until there is an acceptance of the plea of guilty which will amount to a determination of guilt by the court. The acceptance of the plea by the court amounts to a determination of guilt because it means that the court is satisfied that the accused has pleaded guilty to an offence known to law with full appreciation of the nature and consequences of the plea. 4) In the case of a trial the determination of guilt will be the finding of guilt made at the end of the case. 5) Where the word 'conviction' is used in this sense it will occur immediately upon acceptance of a plea of guilt or a finding of guilt by the court resulting in a conviction being recorded before the plea in mitigation has been made by the accused. 6) But even a determination of guilt will not in all cases amount to a 'conviction'. Thus in its wider sense it refers to the final disposal of the case. This will occur after the plea in mitigation has been made and a conviction will accordingly be recorded just before sentence is passed. The proper sense in which the word must be construed in a particular case is dependent on the statutory context in which it is used. Where there is nothing in the context to suggest the narrower sense in which it is used then it must be interpreted to refer to its wider meaning.

The procedure to be followed where there is a plea of guilt or a finding of guilt can thus be summarised as follows: Section 173(b) (1) Charge must be read and explained to accused. Court must ensure that accused understands the charge. (2) Accused pleads guilty. (3) Recording of plea to commence. (4) Court must ensure that accused understands nature and consequences of his plea. First stage in recording plea. (5) Facts of the case to be recorded. (6) Court must ascertain that facts make out the offence. (7) Court must ascertain whether accused admits the facts. (8) If accused denies the facts plea to be rejected and case to be fixed for trial. (9) If accused admits facts plea to be accepted. Second stage in recording plea. (10) Plea in mitigation. (11) Recording of conviction (No recording of conviction if order to be made is one under s 173A Criminal Procedure Code). (12) Sentence.

1) MAUNG MIN AUNG and a co-accused were charged with an offense against the immigration act with relation to passports. There were 4 charges in all for each of them 2) The Magistrate jointly asked both the Accused what their pleas were and recorded a PG from them upon which after providing their mitigation statements, they were convicted. 3) The Defense Counsel appeal that proper procedure was not applied, that the conviction should have been recorded prior to mitigation but Appellate C disagreed based on the narrow and wide interpretation of conviction and laid out the process for a Summary trial upon a PG based on 12 steps. 4) But it held that the PG was bad bcs the PG was done in such a fashion as to asked the Accused jointly instead of separately, this could not be allowed bcs it is the C duty to ensure that the Accused understands what the facts are that he is PG to and what the consequences are of his PG in order to be able to establish and record that the PG is unequivocal. This is not possible when the PG are asked and recorded any asking BOTH ACCUSED AT THE SAME TIME.

1) a conviction based on a joint plea of guilty by two or more accused persons is bad and irregular 2) where there are two or more charges against an accused person the charges should be read out and explained to him separately and the plea must be recorded separately on each charge

1) Accused must PG or claim to be tried by his own mouth & not through his counsel/advocate R v Tan Thian Chai (1932) *** Followed in Pendakwaraya lwn Shahreeil bin Said [2007] 6 ML 569 2) The best mode as it precludes all questions that the accused wishes to plead guilty or otherwise Chin Ban Kiat v R [1949]

1) TAN THIAN CHAI and a co-accused were charged with causing greivous bodily harm. At the Preliminary trial, the J asked each Accused separately what they pleadeded. TAN THIAN CHAI first pleaded guilty, his co Accused, pleaded not guilty. Unsatisfied that TAN THIAN CHAI properly understood the charge and the consequences, the J described them to TAN THIAN CHAI again and then asked him what his plea was, TAN THIAN CHAI pleaded not guilty. 2) At the hearing of the case, the J asked the accused's, TAN THIAN CHAI and the co-accused how they pleaded, but before they could say anything, their counsel pleaded guilty on their behalf. Upon which they were convicted and sentenced. 3) They both appealed on the stance that they were not bound by their counsels plea as it was not their own and had not come from their own mouths. 4) The Apellate C held that the accused must plead or claim trial BY HIS ON MOUTH AND NOT THROUGH OTHERS or his counsel.

1) Provided the offence is punishable by fine only and imprisonment of not more than 3 months 2) Cases: Chow Sai Let v PP [1960] -involves a disqualification for holding driving license PP v Azmy Ariff [1974]-punishment exceeds 3 months

1) s 137 also applicable 2) Counsel PG on behalf of accused 3) PP v Tan Thian Chai - no since unauthorised 4) PP v Chin Ban Keat - yes as duly authorised but highly undesirable

1) if Counsel pleads for his client the plea may legally be accepted and the Court may assume that he is acting in accordance with instructions. 2) But if there is any evidence or even the mere assertion by the accused that the plea was without his authority the Court would be justified in disregarding the Counsel's plea. 3) If this is correct it is clear that the practice of accepting Counsel's plea on behalf of his client is highly undesirable and should be avoided. 4) The only satisfactory way of ascertaining what is in accused's mind is to make him plead himself and record his words. That is the best practice and precludes all questions of whether the plea was authorised or not.

1) CHIN BAN KIAT was a police officer charged in a perfunctory charge statement with accepting bribes. He pleaded guilty through counsel and was convicted 2) CHIN BANNKIAT appealed against the conviction and the sentence on the pretext that the correct procedure was not followed and counsel had pleaded on his behalf 3) The C held that the case should be retried bcs the facts seemed insufficient to hold the charge which was itself not sufficiently elucidated. But it accepted the PG on the basis that there was no assertion by CHIN BAN KIATat his counsel was unauthorized to state his plea. 5) However the C stated that it was no desirable to have Counsels plead. It was always better to have the accused plead himself from his own mouth.

Leng Chow Teng v PP [1985]*** 1) Accused appeared 1st instance with counsel & claimed trial on both charges. Date of hearing was fixed(15th Feb) & bail granted. Case was postponed to 9th Aug & accused was remanded in custody. Case was then brought forward to 4th July without the counsel being notified. 2) Accused PG in absence of counsel and was convicted & sentenced. 3) Record was called by Harun J & after hearing both sides, he quashed the conviction & set aside sentences. PP then referred the following question to the Federal Court. 4) in serious cases which warrant a sentence of imprisonment, and where the charge contained one or more ingredients or questions, and the accused was not represented by counsel, each ingredient and each question involved should be explained by the magistrate to the accused : LEE WENG TUCK ***

1) A plea of guilty by the accused under sub-section 173(b), CPC in the absence of his counsel is not unlawful. The plea should be recorded but NOT ACCEPTED. 2) Thus, whilst the plea itself is perfectly lawful, the acceptance of such a plea in the absence of counsel is bad in law as without counsel's advice the accused could not be said to have understood the nature and consequences of his plea or to have intended to admit without qualification the offences alleged against him. 3) Our answer to the question posed by the Public Prosecutor is therefore in the positive but subject to an important qualification that such plea of guilty should only be recorded but not accepted unless the court is satisfied that the absence of Defence Counsel has been properly accounted for.

1) LENG CHOW TENG was charged with possessing opium and equipment for smoking opium. He was represented by counsel and claimed trial. He was released on payment of bail. His trial set for August 2) the date of the trial was however moved up and this was not informed to LENG CHOW TENG's counsel, further, in contravention of his payment of bail, he was placed in remand and imorisoned until the hearing of his case. 3) At the hearing of his case in July, without his counsel knowing of the hearing date. LENG CHOW TENG pleaded guilty on both counts and was sentenced to Imprisonment. When the original hearing date came up and his defense counsel came to know of the matter he wrote to the President of the C and complained that his client had been deprived of his right under Art 5 of the Federal Constitution. 4) The case was reheard and the conviction quashed with no retrial ordered. The DPP appeal again without notifying counsel. 5) The C held that while an admission of guilt from the mouth of the accused is good in law, it cannot be accepted despite it being able to be recorded. This is bcs Sec 173 a and b require the C to ensure that the Accused understands the charge against him and its consequences. This cannot be fully appreciated to have occurred without the presence of Counsel being present to explain to the accused, especially where one is on record and especially given that the accused had formerly pleaded not guilty. As such, any acceptance of a plea in a sense of counsel is bad in law and unacceptable.

1) PG in such a case is good in law but such plea should only be recorded but not accepted unless the court is satisfied that the absence of the counsel has been properly accounted for. 2) The acceptance of such a plea in the absence of counsel is bad in law & irregular as without counsel͛s advice, the accused could not be said to have understood the nature & consequences of PG or to have intended to admit without qualification the offences alleged against him.

1) Charge is read 2) a) Pleads guilty or b) Claims trial 3) Brief facts 4) a) Accused admits or b) Accused disputes 5) Acceptance of the PG (if 2a + 4a) 6) Conviction 7) Mitigation 8) Sentence

1) Procedure carried out after the plea is made the first time. If offence is minor hence straightforward, particulars of facts are self-explanatory in the charge. 2) Usually charge contains only bare essentials/elements of charge. So further facts are required if offence is complex 3) Magistrate has a duty to ensure that the facts disclosed by the PO/DPP disclose an offence which the accused had pleaded to 4) The Magistrate should be vigilant to see that the facts make out the ingredients relating to the charge. 5) As the facts will inevitably form evidence for the prosecution's case, the accused will be asked if he admits those facts 6) Where the accused states facts which show that one or more of the essential requirements has or have not been made out, then not withstanding the plea of guilty, Magistrate should reject the plea and fix a date for evidence to be adduced at a trial: PP v Margarita B Cruz [1988] 1 MLJ 539 at 540. See also PP. Lim Yoo Hock 7) Where there is a statement of facts agreed to by an accused and his conviction is founded on such a statement, the accused is only bound by what he has agreed to: PP v Hon Jin Bong [1999] 5 MLJ 366.

1) DISPUTES or CHALLENGES.... Court would - reject PG - set case for trial 2) ADMITS.... Court would - accept PG - record finding of guilty - proceed to dispose case i.e. sentence the accused - even if admits, court must ensure the facts support the charge. If not, court will have to

1) Palan v PP - in a case when the accused pleads guilty to the charge it is the duty of the trial judge before passing the sentence to take evidence of the nature of the crime charged 2) PP v Soon Tiew Choon -it is elementary but nonetheless fundamental that when an accused pleads guilty to a charge, the brief facts given by the prosecuting officer must REFLECT THE TRUE & ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE CHARGE 3) Lian Khian Boon v PP - facts stated should be limited to facts which the prosecution are able to prove and only to facts necessary to establish the charge

Abd Kadir Abd Rahman v PP - the court laid down the following principles: 1. Prosecution must give a detailed & complete narrative of all the facts of the case together with a recitation in the language of the relevant section of each & every ingredient of the offence charged: 2. The narrative/short summary of the facts of the case is important to ascertain whether admission of the facts amount to a plea; 3. Also important to assist the court in forming an opinion of the accused͛s conduct in assessing the sentence

1) s 305 does not preclude the Court from considering the question whether the PG was one which could properly be accepted in the circumstances 2) The law relating to negligence is by no means free from difficulties & the question whether a particular act or omission amounts to criminal negligence or merely to civil negligence has been frequently canvassed in the Courts both here and in England. 3) Except, therefore in a case where the facts are simple & the law applicable to those facts beyond doubt it seems to me to be impossible to expect an accused person unversed in law & unrepresented by counsel to be able to say yes, or no, whether he has been guilty of criminal negligence. 4) In this particular case, where the appellant was a young Chinese girl & the circumstances in which the alleged negligence took place were obscure, it was, in my opinion, wrong for the learned District Judge to accept the PG 5) Where the facts and the offence are complicated, the judge should not be hasty in accepting a plea of guilt unless he is fully satisfied that the accused really understood the nature and consequences of PG thereof.

A trial court is vested with the discretion to allow the accused, before the sentence is passed, to withdraw a PG and to substitute it with a plea of not guilty.

1) As with other powers, this discretion must be exercised judicially and UPON JUSTIFIABLE GROUNDS/REASONS. 2) An accused cannot simply be allowed to change his plea according to his whims & fancy but only upon COGENT GROUNDS which SATISFY the C that it is PROPER in the eyes of justice to allow it

1) ABD MORMIN V PP * A PG can be withdrawn BEFORE the court is functus officio but it was not specified at what stage this takes place. Functus Officio - refers to one who has exercised his authority & brought it to an end in a particular case. Re VGM Holdings [1941] 3 All ER 417 2) JAMALUL KHAIR v PP President was not functus officio until she has passed a sentence or has otherwise finally adjudicated the matter 3) LEE WENG TUCK v PP * A PG can be changed at any time BEFORE sentence but the power to allow/disallow must be exercised judicially

1) the functus officio argument cannot have any application in considering a withdrawal of plea of guilty before sentence, where the conviction and sentence are before the same court. 2) It is settled law that a judge can entertain an application by an accused person to retract a plea of guilty at any time before the case is finally disposed of by sentence. In the instant appeal, the learned trial judge was therefore correct in law when he held that a plea of guilty, even though unequivocal, might be changed at any time before sentence. 3) We would hasten to add, however, that the power must be exercised judicially and on valid grounds. 4) It is equally settled practice that where the plea of guilty is equivocal, ie where it is not clear, or is doubtful or qualified, the plea must in law be treated as one of not guilty and the court shall proceed to try the case as required by s 178(iii) of the Criminal Procedure Code 5) the proper safeguards as enumerated in TAN THIAN CHAI must be adhered to. If there was a breach of proper safeguards rendering the plea of guilty on the capital charge invalid. Merely because they were represented by counsel, it could not be assumed in the circumstances that the appellants actually know of the consequences of their plea of guilty. 6) In capital cases, a plea of guilty might be accepted by the court if proper safeguards were taken to ensure that the plea was valid and unequivocal. 7) Whether a guilty plea was valid and unequivocal was a question of mixed law and fact, but the validity of the plea must first be established before the plea could be said to be unequivocal. 8) In capital cases, a trial judge had the discretionary power to permit an accused person to change his plea at any time before sentence, but the discretion must be exercised judicially and on valid grounds. Where, however, the accused wished to change his plea of guilty for reasons which gave rise to a reasonable doubt as to the validity or unequivocality of the guilty plea due to failure to take proper safeguards. then the court had no discretion but to permit the accused to retract his plea

A plea of guilty must be valid and unequivocal, and in order to determine the validity of a plea of guilty, the safeguards which must be followed might be stated as follows: (i) The court must ensure that it is the accused himself who wishes to plead guilty. Whitley J held that an accused person should plead guilty or claim to be tried by his own mouth and not through his counsel. (ii) The court must ascertain that the accused understands the nature and consequences of his plea. (iii) The court must ascertain that the accused intends to admit without qualification the offence alleged against him.

When there are more than one accused person and one decides to PG whereas the other claims to be tried the procedure depends on Whether the one who PG is intended to be a witness by the PP

1) Then his case ought to be disposed of immediately!!! 2) Yap See Teck v PP Toh Ah Loh v R

1) unless the co-accused had been sentenced by the Court, his testimony as a Prosecution or Defence witness would carry very little weight since there is always the strong probability that in giving evidence, particularly for the Prosecution, he would hope for a light sentence or even for the charge against him to be totally withdrawn. It can reasonably be argued that by postponing sentence, the sword of Damocles would be held over his head in order to induce him to give favourable evidence for the Prosecution. Whereas, no such probability can exist once he has been dealt with by the court. 2) where a co-accused pleads guilty before the commencement of trial, it is desirable for the court to enquire whether the Prosecution or the remaining co-accused wish to call him as their witness. If either the Prosecution or the Defence intimated that they wished to do so, I think it is desirable in the interest of justice that the court should not postpone sentence, but should proceed to dispose of the case, before removing him altogether from the court. But if neither party requires him as a witness, sentence should be postponed until after the trial against the remaining co-accused has been completed. This would avoid the "awkward situation" that might arise where two accused are charged for committing an offence jointly

1) YAP SEE TECK was charged with 2 co-accused for committing gang robbery twice at a Chinese herbal medicine shop. The first co-accused pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced. 2) This first co-accused then turned prosecution witness and at the close of the trial, YAP SEE TECK and the remaining co-accused were sentenced to a harsher sentence then the co-accused who had pleaded guilty. They appealed on the contention that the co-accused who pleaded guilty should not have been convicted and sentenced before their trial had been dealt with. 4) The Appellate C disagreed, holding that the weight of the co-accused evidence would be more credible once he had been sentenced as he would not be tempted to give evidence more favourable to the Prosecution in the hope of a lighter sentence given that his sentence had already been passed on him. 5) Further it was held that the correct manner is to decide the case for the co-accused who pleads guilty first, then offer him as a witness to either the Orosecution or Defense. If he is not required, then to remove him from Court. If he is required, then to only have him in court when his evidence is required so as not to contaminate his testimony by having him hear the evidence of other witnesses.

His sentencing ought to be postponed until the trial against the other co-accused is completed!

1) Court must ensure it is the accused himself who wishes to plead - (Tan Thian Chai) 2) Court must ascertain the accused understands the nature & consequences of his plea 3) Court must ascertain that the accused intends to admit without qualification the offence alleged against him Lee Weng Tuck v PP**

1) Refers to situations whereby the earlier charge has been amended due to being defective/lacking in particulars. In such a case the PP may have it amended before a plea is taken 2) C/ref to ss 158, 159

1) LOW HIONG BOON was charged with : That you on 8.9.48 at about 4 am caused the death of LKF, male aged 10 mths old by a negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide to wit, by allowing the ignorant mother of the deceased to administer an overdose of Oleum Chinnapodium when you were a nurse on duty at Ward No.2 of General Hospital, KL, on that day & thereby committed offence under s 304A of the Penal Code. 2) 3rd Feb 1949:Appellant claimed trial. Case postponed for hearing. 25th Feb 1949:Appellant was re-charged & she then pleaded guilty. Nothing on record to show whether trial judge interrogated the appellant as to what exactly she thought she was admitting. She was not represented. Plea was recorded. 3) Prosecution proceeded to give the brief facts of the case: Accused gave bottle to the ignorant mother of child LKF with instructions to give child a dose at 4 a.m. Dose 3 drops. Mother gave half bottle of oil of Chinnapodium & a little later gave the other half. Child became violently ill & died. Post mortem revealed cause of death due to overdose. Accused gave birth to a child 1 month later.' 4) Appellant then made a few remarks in mitigation where the case was adjourned for evidence on investigation as to accused's medical condition & sentence. At the conclusion of evidence the Judge recorded a conviction & sentenced accused to 5 months imprisonment. 5) LOW HIONG BOON appealed. The DPP reminded the court that since she had pleaded guilty the appeal could only be against the sentence. Spencer-Wilkinson J however said that s 305 does not preclude the Court from considering the question whether the PG was one which could properly be accepted in the circumstances. 6) The conviction & sentence was quashed & the appellant was ordered to be re-tried before another Magistrate.