Leong Sow Hon v Public Prosecutor: Building Control Act Violation for Viaduct Structural Design Failure
In Leong Sow Hon v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Leong Sow Hon against his six-month imprisonment sentence. Leong was convicted of violating Section 18(1) of the Building Control Act for failing to properly evaluate the structural design of a viaduct. The High Court, presided over by Aedit Abdullah J, dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, emphasizing the importance of accredited checkers' responsibilities in ensuring public safety.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Leong Sow Hon appeals a 6-month sentence for violating the Building Control Act by failing to properly evaluate the structural design of a viaduct. The appeal was dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Ho Jiayun of Attorney-General’s Chambers Yang Ziliang of Attorney-General’s Chambers Ho Lian-Yi of Attorney-General’s Chambers Kristy Tan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Mark Yeo of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Leong Sow Hon | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Aedit Abdullah | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ho Jiayun | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Yang Ziliang | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ho Lian-Yi | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Kristy Tan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mark Yeo | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Eva Teh Jing Hui | K&L Gates Straits Law LLC |
| N. Sreenivasan SC | K&L Gates Straits Law LLC |
| S Balamurugan | K&L Gates Straits Law LLC |
| Sivanathan Wijaya Ravana | R. S. Wijaya & Co |
4. Facts
- Leong Sow Hon was the accredited checker for the construction of a viaduct.
- He failed to evaluate, analyze, and review the structural design of key structural elements.
- He did not perform independent calculations for the permanent corbels of the viaduct.
- Eight out of ten piers with permanent corbels were inadequately designed.
- Five piers were unable to support their intended weight during construction.
- The collapse of the viaduct caused a delay of at least two years.
- Leong initially claimed to have performed calculations but later admitted he had not.
5. Formal Citations
- Leong Sow Hon v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9156 of 2019, [2020] SGHC 228
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Leong Sow Hon appointed as accredited checker for viaduct construction. | |
| Crossheads at two piers of the viaduct gave way. | |
| Leong Sow Hon initially claimed to have performed original calculations. | |
| Leong Sow Hon admitted to not performing calculations. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Building Control Act
- Outcome: The court upheld the sentence for breaching the Building Control Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to evaluate structural design
- Failure to perform independent calculations
- Sentencing
- Outcome: The court found the sentence was not manifestly excessive.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Mitigating factors
- General deterrence
- Manifestly excessive sentence
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against imprisonment sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of Building Control Act s 18(1)
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Construction Law
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Iskandar Bin Rahmat v Public Prosecutor and other matters | High Court | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 505 | Singapore | Cited for the Ladd v Marshall conditions for adducing fresh evidence on appeal. |
| Mohammad Zam bin Abdul Rashid v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 410 | Singapore | Cited regarding the weight given to relevance and credibility of further evidence in criminal proceedings. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohd Ariffan bin Mohd Hassan | High Court | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 544 | Singapore | Cited regarding the attenuation of the Ladd v Marshall requirements. |
| Public Prosecutor v GS Engineering & Construction Corp | High Court | Yes | [2017] 3 SLR 682 | Singapore | Cited for the assessment of potential harm in sentencing. |
| Nurun Novi Saydur Rahman v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2019] 3 SLR 413 | Singapore | Cited for considering the seriousness and likelihood of harm in assessing potential harm. |
| Public Prosecutor v Law Aik Meng | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 814 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that general deterrence is significant in offences affecting public safety. |
| Ong Chee Eng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 776 | Singapore | Cited for the duty of the court to explore the full spectrum of sentences. |
| Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 653 | Singapore | Cited for bearing in mind the maximum and minimum sentences in sentencing. |
| Mao Xuezhong v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 99 | Singapore | Cited for the two-stage approach and sentencing bands adopted in WSHA cases. |
| Mohd Akebal s/o Ghulam Jilani v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 266 | Singapore | Cited concerning the treatment of sentencing guidelines. |
| Public Prosecutor v Siow Kai Yuan Terence | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 82 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principle that the court is never concerned with the offender’s social status, wealth or other indicia of privilege and position in society. |
| Stansilas Fabian Kester v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 755 | Singapore | Cited regarding justifying the mitigating value of public service and contributions by reference to the four established principles of sentencing. |
| Siah Ooi Choe v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1988] 1 SLR(R) 309 | Singapore | Cited regarding the conception of the clang of the prison gates principle. |
| Tan Sai Tiang v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR(R) 33 | Singapore | Cited regarding the underlying premise of the clang of the prison gates principle. |
| R v Iorwerth Jones | English Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | (1980) 2 Cr App (S) 134 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the clang of the prison gates principle. |
| Public Prosecutor v Teo Chang Heng | High Court | Yes | [2018] 3 SLR 1163 | Singapore | Cited regarding a clean record and good conduct may show that offences were committed out of character and thus an aberration. |
| Chang Kar Meng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 68 | Singapore | Cited regarding the weight to be placed on a plea of guilt as a mitigating factor. |
| Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 449 | Singapore | Cited regarding whether a discount should be accorded to an accused person who pleaded guilty is a fact-sensitive matter that depends on multiple factors. |
| Wong Kai Chuen Philip v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1990] 2 SLR(R) 361 | Singapore | Cited regarding a plea of guilt in circumstances where the Prosecution would have had little difficulty in establishing the offence would, at least prima facie, reduce the weight to be placed on such a plea. |
| Than Stenly Granida Purwanto v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 576 | Singapore | Cited regarding a plea of guilt in circumstances where the Prosecution would have had little difficulty in establishing the offence would, at least prima facie, reduce the weight to be placed on such a plea. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Building Control Act (Cap 29, 1999 Rev Ed) s 18(1) | Singapore |
| Building Control Act (Cap 29, 1999 Rev Ed) s 18(3) | Singapore |
| Building Control Act (Cap 29, 1999 Rev Ed) s 43A(a) | Singapore |
| Building Control (Accredited Checkers and Accredited Checking Organisations) Regulations (Cap 29, Rg 2, 2002 Rev Ed) paragraph 7(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 392(1) | Singapore |
| Workplace Safety and Health Act (Cap 354A, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Accredited checker
- Building Control Act
- Viaduct
- Permanent corbels
- Structural design
- Independent calculations
- Potential harm
- General deterrence
- Culpability
- Manifestly excessive
- Accredited checking organisation
- Qualified person
15.2 Keywords
- Building Control Act
- Accredited Checker
- Viaduct
- Structural Design
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Construction Law
- Criminal Law
- Building Control