Wee Chong Jin CJ:

This is quite obviously a case where no re-trial ought to be ordered; the charge is bad and the essential ingredient of the charge is not contained in it. Merely using abusive words is not an offence under any law so that an accused person must be charged under that particular subsection of the Minor Offences Act with either using abusive words with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or if it is a case where the abusive words are such whereby they are likely to cause provocation, those words must be in the charge and as had happened in this case the appellant had been convicted of using abusive words then that is not an offence known to our law.

It is said that there ought to be a re-trial. Looking at the nature of the evidence in this case and the use of the words complained of in the circumstances in which they arose it is not a fit case where a re-trial ought to be ordered and therefore the appeal is allowed, the conviction quashed and the fine to be refunded.

Appeal allowed