State v. Lance Corporal (res) Poon Chee Seng
Singapore Court of Military Appeals
SMC (1995)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Lance Corporal Poon Chee Seng (defendant) was a reservist in the Singapore Army (plaintiff). As a reservist, Poon Chee Seng had a legal obligation to appear for duty if given proper notice. Poon Chee Seng’s reserve unit gave him two separate notices that Poon Chee Seng needed to appear to perform a physical-fitness test. Poon Chee Seng acknowledged receiving these notices but did not show up for the test. Military authorities left four additional notices at Poon Chee Seng’s address. During this time, Poon Chee Seng interacted with local police and passport authorities, and none of those authorities told him that the army was searching for him. However, Poon Chee Seng never reached out to his reserve unit to check in or ask about his current obligations. The army charged Poon Chee Seng with desertion and held a court-martial. Poon Chee Seng claimed that (1) he had forgotten about the first two notices due to being busy at work, (2) he had never received the four notices at his address because he had moved, (3) he had not known when or where to report for his reserve duties, and (4) he had not known that anyone was looking for him or expected him to report anywhere. The court-martial judge found that there was reasonable doubt about whether Poon Chee Seng had intended to be absent from his military duties permanently and acquitted Poon Chee Seng. The army appealed to the Singapore Court of Military Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.