Misplaced Pages

#425574

80-620: The church motto is "Holding Forth the Word of Life" (Philippians 2:16). Life Bible-Presbyterian Church ("LBPC") was established by Timothy Tow , who in 1950 became pastor of the Life Church English Service at Say Mia Tng a Chinese Presbyterian Church at Prinsep Street (not to be confused with Prinsep Street Presbyterian Church ). In 1955 Tow and others left the Chinese Presbyterian Synod to form

160-693: A 1988 Privy Council ruling reversing the Court of Appeal's decision to strike opposition politician J.B. Jeyaretnam off the roll of advocates and solicitors for having been convicted of cheque fraud and making a false declaration concerning the accounts of the Workers' Party of Singapore . The Privy Council judged Jeyaretnam to have been the victim of a "grievous injustice" in Singapore's courts, having been "fined, imprisoned and publicly disgraced for offences of which [he and his co-accused] were not guilty". Under

240-732: A Divisional Court at each settlement. However, the Court of Appeal of the Straits Settlements was not the highest appellate court of the colony. From 1826, when Singapore's first court – the Court of Judicature of Prince of Wales' Island , Singapore, and Malacca  – was established, appeals lay to the King-in-Council . Such appeals were taken over by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council from 1844. A party wishing to appeal had to petition

320-516: A High Court judge be designated to further hear the parties and to conduct a detailed examination before drawing up the Scheme to set out the parties’ respective rights and obligations in relation to the use, occupation and maintenance of the Premises. The Scheme was finalised on 27 November 2014 with certain areas in the Premises allocated for the exclusive use of LBPC and certain areas allocated for

400-537: A case. During a State Court trial, instead of applying for the trial judge to state a case for the High Court's opinion, a party to the proceedings may apply to the Court of Appeal for leave for a case to be stated directly to that Court. Upon a review of the case, the Court of Appeal will make a determination on the question and may then alter the sentence passed, pass a sentence, or give such judgment or make such order as it deems fit. The Court of Appeal exercises

480-435: A particular case, it may summon persons of skill and experience in the matter to which the proceedings relate to sit with the Court and act as assessors . Matters before the Court are decided according to the opinion of the majority of the members of the Court hearing the case. If there are only two judges hearing an appeal and they disagree, the appeal is dismissed and the decision appealed against stands. The schedule of

560-453: A retrial; inform the High Court of its opinion on a matter and send it back to that court for further proceedings to be taken; or make any other order as it thinks just, exercising any power that the trial court might have exercised. The Court also has power to quash the sentence passed by the trial court and substitute a more or less severe sentence in its place. A trial court's judgment, sentence or order may only be reversed or set aside if it

640-482: A similar power to determine questions of law reserved for its decision by the High Court or the Public Prosecutor after the High Court has heard an appeal from a State Court or has exercised its revisionary jurisdiction. Any question of law on which there is a conflict of judicial authority is deemed to be a question of public interest. As the highest court of Singapore and its final appellate court, under

720-399: A single judgment, though separate judgments may be given if the presiding Judge of Appeal so directs. In the 2009 decision Yong Vui Kong v. Public Prosecutor , the Court left open the issue of whether it had inherent jurisdiction following the conclusion of an appeal to reopen the matter if new evidence came to light. It expressed the view that "it would be in the interest of justice that

800-677: A single permanent Court of Appeal exercising both civil and criminal appellate jurisdiction was instituted with the Chief Justice sitting as the President of the Court together with Judges of Appeal, who rank above ordinary judges of the High Court. The Court of Appeal is made up of the Chief Justice , who is the President of the Court, and the Judges of Appeal. The Chief Justice may appoint Judges of Appeal as vice-presidents of

880-699: A strong reason. The Court of Appeal is required, however, to abide by decisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Tribunal in certain situations. The Constitution of Singapore states that where the President has referred to the Tribunal a question concerning the Constitution's effect on a bill , no court—including the Court of Appeal—may subsequently question the Tribunal's opinion on

SECTION 10

#1732801232426

960-578: Is inconsistent with the fundamental doctrines of the College, viz. the Westminster Confession of Faith (“WCF”). The Court of Appeal of Singapore , the apex court in the Singapore legal system, looked at Article VIII Ch 1 in the WCF and – in overturning the High Court decision – ruled on 26 April 2011 that: Despite expressing in “Mark Them Which Cause Divisions” about the need for “protecting

1040-463: Is only exercisable when the court has jurisdiction in a matter, "where the SCJA [Supreme Court of Judicature Act] does not expressly state when its jurisdiction in a criminal appeal ends, there is no reason for this court to circumscribe its own jurisdiction to render itself incapable of correcting a miscarriage of justice at any time". If a person has been convicted by the High Court, the trial judge and

1120-614: The Bible-Presbyterian Church and LBPC was established. In 1963, LBPC moved into new premises in 9 & 9A Gilstead Road. The acquisition of 10 Gilstead Road was completed on 30 April 1990. In 1988, the Synod of the Bible-Presbyterian Church was dissolved, but LBPC and other Bible-Presbyterian churches continue to exist under their respective names. Article 4.1 of LBPC's constitution states that

1200-735: The High Court of Singapore on 15 September 2008; and (ii) DC1956/2013R in the Subordinate Courts of Singapore (later renamed the State Courts of Singapore ) on 27 June 2013. Brutus Balan in a letter dated 30 January 2008, addressed to Seet and the Board of Elders of LBPC with a plea to them to avoid carrying out their legal threat to evict the College from the Gilstead Road premises, had concluded: “You [LBPC leaders] have

1280-564: The Bible: Chronology of Events II" in The Burning Bush, July 2015, Volume 21, Number 2, pp. 95–98.) LBPC first rejected on 18 November 2013 FEBC's offer of a love gift of SGD350,000 made on 5 November 2013, based on “the higher law of Christian charity,” as full and final settlement of any and all claims by LBPC up to the date of the Scheme despite FEBC having received legal advice that it had strong grounds to resist

1360-487: The Bible: Chronology of Events II" in The Burning Bush, July 2015, Volume 21, Number 2, pp. 95–98.) On the termination of Suit DC1956/2013R, Seet wrote briefly, without any details, at the end of his pastoral message “Live At Peace With All Men” in LBPC's weekly of 4 January 2015: “Regarding what the church claimed from the college for using the premises, both parties have agreed to an out-of-court settlement. This concludes

1440-407: The Chief Justice to sit as judges of the Court of Appeal to hear specific appeals. Judges of Appeals cannot sit as members of the Court when appeals are against judgments or orders made by them, convictions made or a sentences passed by them, or questions of law reserved by them for the Court of Appeal to decide when they were acting as High Court judges. If the Court feels it requires assistance in

1520-635: The Chief Justice. However, the Court may also sit with a greater uneven number of Judges of Appeal. This is done in cases of unusual difficulty or importance. The most recent case of sitting with 5 justices was the 2022 decision How Weng Fan and others v Sengkang Town Council and other appeals. The Court may also sit with just two Judges of Appeal in appeals in civil matters against interlocutory orders and other orders apart from judgments handed down after trials commenced by writs of summons or hearings commenced by other originating processes such as originating summons. High Court judges may be requested by

1600-463: The Court of Appeal, while others are only appealable if the Court grants leave (permission). Where criminal matters are concerned, the Court only hears appeals from cases originating in the High Court. Matters heard by the High Court on appeal from the State Courts cannot be further appealed to the Court of Appeal, though questions of law may be submitted to the Court for determination. Under

1680-480: The Court should be regarded as functus officio , that is, it has fully "performed its office" and no longer has any legal power to act. However, in Yong Vui Kong the Court said: [T]he finality principle should not be applied strictly in criminal cases where the life or liberty of the accused is at stake as it would subvert the true value of the judicial process, which is to ensure, as far as possible, that

SECTION 20

#1732801232426

1760-627: The Court's sittings is determined every year by the Chief Justice. In general, the Court sits throughout the year except during the mid-year and end-year court vacations (usually end of May to end of June, and the beginning of December to the beginning of January respectively). The Chief Justice also appoints the places where the Court sits. When the Supreme Court moved from the Old Supreme Court Building and City Hall Building at 1 and 3 Saint Andrew's Road respectively to

1840-471: The Court. As of 22 January 2023, the Chief Justice was Sundaresh Menon and the Justices of Appeal were Judith Prakash and Tay Yong Kwang (both appointed 1 August 2016), Steven Chong Horng Siong (appointed on 1 April 2017) and Belinda Ang Saw Ean (appointed on 1 November 2022). When hearing civil and criminal matters, the Court of Appeal usually sits with three Judges of Appeal, one of whom may be

1920-575: The High Court and Suit DC1956/2013R in the Subordinate (later renamed State) Courts (see above). 1°18′56″N 103°50′18″E  /  1.3156°N 103.8382°E  / 1.3156; 103.8382 Timothy Tow Timothy Tow Siang Hui (28 December 1920 – 20 April 2009) was a Singaporean pastor who founded the Bible-Presbyterian Church . He was also founding principal of the Far Eastern Bible College . Tow

2000-421: The High Court can appeal against the conviction , the sentence or both. The exception is that people who pled guilty may only appeal the extent or legality of the sentence. In the latter situation, the Court of Appeal may nonetheless permit the person who pleaded guilty to appeal against conviction if it believes that this is in the interests of justice. The Public Prosecutor may appeal against an acquittal or

2080-416: The High Court, when a judgment or order is made with the parties' consent, and where a statute declares that a judgment or order of the High Court is final. In some other cases, an appeal may only be brought with the leave of a High Court judge. These include cases where the amount or value of the subject-matter at the trial was S$ 250,000 or less, and High Court appeals concerning the adoption of children,

2160-686: The Judicial Committee for leave (permission) to do so. In 1934, a separate Court of Criminal Appeal was established in the Straits Settlements. All courts ceased to function during World War II when the Japanese occupation of Singapore began in February 1942. Though the Japanese military authorities created a court of appeal, it did not hear any cases. Following the end of the occupation in 1945, all pre-war courts were revived. There

2240-599: The KJV, and not in the corrupted and rejected texts of Westcott and Hort that underlie the many modern versions of the English Bible like the NIV , NASV , ESV , RSV , TEV , CEV , TLB , etc., but the Board of Elders of LBPC disagrees. LBPC wrote in its weekly of 13 July 2008 regarding “1 Corinthians 6 which teaches us not to take fellow Christians to court.” However, LBPC commenced two lawsuits against FEBC: (i) Suit 648 in

2320-423: The Premises “free of charge for this extended period." LBPC's pastoral announcement gave as background and impression that because the Court of Appeal had on 26 April 2011 ruled (with the High Court here) that FEBC is separate and independent from LBPC, LBPC then requested FEBC to pay the sum claimed as FEBC's obligation to contribute towards the past maintenance and upkeep of the premises. But LBPC had already taken

2400-507: The Privy Council to continue its role as Singapore's final court of appeal, and to remove the need to petition the British monarch or the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in order to appeal. In 1985, 21 out of 142 appeals heard by the Privy Council originated from Singapore. Moves towards full legal autochthony from Britain began in 1989, when appeals to the Privy Council were limited in the wake of

2480-611: The Privy Council with effect from 8 April 1994. On 11 July that year, the Court handed down a practice statement declaring that it would regard itself free to depart from previous decisions of its own or of the Privy Council in any case where adherence to such prior decisions would cause injustice in a particular case or constrain the development of the law in conformity with the circumstances of Singapore. Therefore, whilst this court will continue to treat such prior decisions as normally binding, this court will, whenever it appears right to do so, depart from such prior decisions. Bearing in mind

Life Bible-Presbyterian Church - Misplaced Pages Continue

2560-410: The Public Prosecutor may reserve for the Court of Appeal's decision any questions of law that arose during the trial that would affect its outcome. Any other party to the proceedings may also apply for the trial judge to state a case on a question of law for the Court of Appeal's determination, and if the judge declines to do so the party may apply to the Court of Appeal to direct the trial judge to state

2640-485: The SGD350,000 offered on 5 November 2013 (because of further legal costs incurred)—and this was accepted on 14 August 2014 despite LBPC threatening on 4 August 2014 to transfer the suit to the High Court to sue for a higher sum of SGD615,000, which action never materialised (although an application for transfer was filed on 8 August 2014) and the suit was finally discontinued on 21 January 2015. (See details in "The Battle for

2720-544: The Singapore legal system, ruled on 26 April 2011 that (i)“the VPP doctrine is actually closely related to the VPI doctrine which both parties [i.e., FEBC and Life BPC] adhere to,” (rejecting Life BPC’s contention in [59] of the Court of Appeal Judgement that it is “an entirely different creature from the VPI doctrine");” (ii) “the College, in adopting the VPP doctrine, has not deviated from the fundamental principles which guide and inform

2800-466: The Yang di-Pertuan Agong, who then made the final orders. Singapore left the Federation in 1965. At the time of the nation's full independence, no changes were made to the judicial system. It was only with effect from 9 January 1970 that the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore consisting of the Court of Appeal and High Court was established. The Judicial Committee Act 1966 was passed to enable

2880-483: The bill or, assuming the bill is found to be constitutional, the validity of any law based on the bill. The Court of Appeal is Singapore 's highest court, and thus its court of final appeal . Its earliest predecessor was the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements which, following legal changes introduced in 1873, had jurisdiction to sit as a Full Court of Appeal with not less than three judges and as

2960-793: The church's doctrine shall be in accordance with that system commonly called "the Reformed Faith" as expressed in the Confession of Faith ” as set forth by the historic Westminster Assembly together with the Larger Catechism and the Shorter Catechism . The Far Eastern Bible College ("FEBC") shares premises with LBPC, but it had a falling out with LBPC over Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP). FEBC teaches that God has supernaturally preserved each and every one of His inspired Hebrew/Aramaic OT words and Greek NT words to

3040-528: The claim. Then, in efforts to have the parties resolve their dispute by alternative dispute resolution, the State Courts arranged for mediation in their Primary Dispute Resolution Centre with two District Judges (Ong Chin Rhu and Joyce Low) appointed as mediators. Despite FEBC offering at the first mediation meeting on 29 January 2014 to pay LBPC the sum of SGD250,000 sued for in Suit DC1956/2013R and, at

3120-514: The congregation) for the claim in Suit DC1956/2013R to be resolved expeditiously and amicably without the need for adjudication by the Courts, notwithstanding the filing of the Writ of Summons. However, the matter was not resolved expeditiously and amicably as it went to trial before LBPC requested amicable settlement when faced with the prospect of losing another lawsuit. (See details in "The Battle for

3200-560: The costs order made against LBPC, it paid to FEBC on 17 December 2014 a sum of SGD75,000 for the costs of the appeal and in 2011 a sum of SGD188,519 for the costs and disbursements in respect of the trial below (i.e., the High Court trial which was held from 25 to 29 January 2010). In Suit DC1956/2013R, LBPC sued FEBC over money, and not doctrine. After filing the Writ of Summons for the suit, LBPC claimed in their pastoral announcement on 14 July 2013 that FEBC had failed and refused to honour its commitment to pay for past maintenance and upkeep of

3280-445: The court for the first time. In general, the Court hears civil appeals from decisions of the High Court made in the exercise of the latter's original and appellate jurisdiction, that is, decisions on cases that started in the High Court as well as decisions that were appealed from the State Courts of Singapore to the High Court. However, this rule is subject to various restrictions. Some types of High Court decisions are not appealable to

Life Bible-Presbyterian Church - Misplaced Pages Continue

3360-465: The court should have the power to correct the mistake, rather than rely on the Executive to correct what is essentially an error in the judicial process", and that it is "reasonable to assume that the court is better placed to evaluate the merits of the new evidence than the Executive". In earlier cases the view had been taken that in the interests of finality, after delivering its judgment in an appeal

3440-399: The courts. (See details in "The Battle for the Bible: Chronology of Events II" in The Burning Bush, July 2015, Volume 21, Number 2, Events 23 November 2013, 29 January 2014, 19 February 2014 and 6 March 2014, pp. 95–96.) Although LBPC sued for only SGD250,000, being restricted by the jurisdictional limit based on the venue or court (viz the State Courts in this instance) where the action

3520-451: The danger of retrospectively disturbing contractual, proprietary and other legal rights, this power will be exercised sparingly. The Court justified this new principle on the basis that "the political, social and economic circumstances of Singapore have changed enormously since Singapore became an independent and sovereign republic. The development of our law should reflect these changes and the fundamental values of Singapore society." Where

3600-594: The doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) and, together with the other directors of the Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC), was sued in 2008 by Life BPC for teaching this doctrine in the Church's attempt to evict the College from the Gilstead Road premises which had been shared by the two institutions from the outset. However the Church failed as the Court of Appeal of Singapore , the apex court in

3680-500: The exclusive use of FEBC while other areas were designated for shared use by both parties and with the periods for each to use them fully defined. FEBC was allotted 1,811.88 sqm of space in the Premises for its exclusive use whereas the Church was allotted 1,999.72 sqm for its exclusive use. The details of the Scheme can be found in FEBC's semi-annual theological journal, The Burning Bush , July 2015, vol. 21, Number 2, pp. 83–91. For

3760-464: The fact that the High Court improperly admitted or rejected evidence shall not be grounds for a new trial unless the Court of Appeal is of the view that some substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice was caused. The Court of Appeal may only order a new trial, or reverse or substantially vary a High Court judgment or order on significant grounds. It will not act in this manner on the basis of immaterial errors, defects or irregularities that do not affect

3840-436: The first pick. After an unsuccessful attempt by the parties to mutually agree on a scheme (the “Scheme”) on how the Premises are to be maintained and used by the College and the Church, the parties appeared before the Court of Appeal on 11 April 2012 to make their submissions on the terms of the Scheme as well as the course to take to move forward. The appellate court in a Supplementary Judgment issued on 25 July 2012 ruled that

3920-477: The first time. In general, the Court hears civil appeals from any High Court judgment or order. These can be decisions made by the High Court when exercising its original jurisdiction (in other words, cases beginning in the High Court itself) or its appellate jurisdiction (cases appealed to the High Court from the State Courts ). However, this general rule is subject to a number of restrictions. No appeal may be brought from certain interlocutory orders made by

4000-496: The flock of God from being influenced and infiltrated by [FEBC's] teaching” (see above), LBPC did not take up FEBC's suggestion of 9 March 2012 made to the Court of Appeal, in accordance with the Abrahamic principle of Genesis 13:8–9 , that the two parties be housed on separate land parcels – 9/9A Gilstead Road and 10 Gilstead Road (collectively, the “Premises”) – located on opposite sides of the road, with FEBC allowing LBPC to have

4080-419: The guilty are convicted and the innocent are acquitted. The floodgates argument should not be allowed to wash away both the guilty and the innocent. A possible argument, which had not yet been posed to the Court, was that Article 93 of the Constitution, which vests the judicial power of Singapore in the Supreme Court, conferred on the Court of Appeal the power to reopen concluded appeals. Although judicial power

SECTION 50

#1732801232426

4160-552: The last jot and tittle so that God's people will always have in their possession His infallible and inerrant Word kept intact without the loss of any word, and that the infallible and inerrant words of Scripture are found in the faithfully preserved Traditional/Byzantine/Majority manuscripts and fully represented in the Printed and Received Text (or Textus Receptus ) that underlie the Reformation Bibles best represented by

4240-722: The letters from LBPC's lawyers dated 25 January 2013, 4 February 2013 and 12 March 2013, which "were not written in the form of a request, but a demand coupled with threats of legal action," contained no unambiguous or amicable offer "to accept the sum previously tendered.” The “sum previously tendered” by FEBC was SGD225,000 and this was included in the sum of SGD250,000 claimed by LBPC in Suit DC1956/2013R as owing by FEBC for utilities and maintenance from March 1970 to May 2008 even though LBPC had on their own accord returned on 28 January 2008 all FEBC cheques totaling SGD225,000 for contributions to such expenses and advised FEBC not to tender any further cheques as they were prepared to let FEBC occupy

4320-616: The lower being the High Court . The Court of Appeal consists of the chief justice , who is the president of the Court, and the judges of the Court of Appeal. The chief justice may ask judges of the High Court to sit as members of the Court of Appeal to hear particular cases. The seat of the Court of Appeal is the Supreme Court Building . The Court exercises only appellate jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters. In other words, it possesses no original jurisdiction —it does not deal with trials of matters coming before

4400-474: The maintenance suit amicably.” The brief statement here on the ending of Suit DC1956/2013R is understandable as Seet's pastoral announcement of 14 July 2013 before the lawsuit's commencement was rebutted by Jeffrey Khoo for inaccuracy without any rejoinder from Seet, and LBPC had also contradicted itself by letting its claim proceed to trial despite Seet asking in the pastoral announcement to pray that “[the] matter will be resolved expeditiously and amicably, without

4480-400: The making of protection orders to prevent family violence , and maintenance for wives and children. Appeals to the Court are by way of rehearing. The Court is not required to accept any findings of fact or law made by the High Court, but hears afresh the parties' submissions on the issues in the appeal and comes to an independent decision. However, the Court relies on the evidence that

4560-443: The merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court of Appeal only hears appeals from decisions of the High Court made when the latter is exercising original criminal jurisdiction. In other words, matters heard by the High Court on appeal from the State Courts cannot be further appealed to the Court of Appeal, though questions of law may be reserved for determination by the Court ( see below ). People convicted in

4640-484: The most inconsistent and contradictory position over this matter and yet the charge of heresy is thrown at FEBC. It has ceased to be a theological debate and has become personal. Now the legal threat to evict the college over your own inconsistent stand is heartless … The fiery darts of evil have struck deep the armor-less leadership. Isn't there any one in the Life BP church session with wisdom and understanding? Will not

4720-538: The need for adjudication by the Courts.” (See above.) Seet had also in 2004 preached a sermon titled "Can Christians Sue One Another?" based on 1 Cor 6:1-8 and this was published as an article in the LBPC's weekly of 23 May 2004 with the conclusion that Christians should follow the example of the Lord Jesus Christ to absorb whatever grief or loss caused to them and not sue fellow Christians in secular courts. The apparent motivation for Seet's sermon and article

4800-417: The new rules, in civil cases to appeal to the Privy Council all parties to the proceedings had to consent, while in criminal cases appeals could only be brought in death penalty cases when the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision had not been unanimous. Subsequently, with effect from 8 April 1994, all remaining appeals to the Privy Council were abolished. The Court of Criminal Appeal was done away with, and

4880-418: The next two mediation meetings on 19 February 2014 and 6 March 2014, an additional sum of SGD5,000 per month until the implementation of the Scheme, as full and final settlement of all claims, LBPC rejected FEBC's offers so that the mediation process had to be terminated by the mediators for directions to be given regarding procedures to be followed and the setting down for trial of the matter to be adjudicated by

SECTION 60

#1732801232426

4960-519: The premises at 9&9A Gilstead Road after they [LBPC] had made many requests to FEBC and indicated their being prepared to accept the amount offered by FEBC as an amicable compromise. FEBC disputed this in True Life Bible-Presbyterian Church's weekly of 11 August 2013 by publishing that contrary to LBPC's “pastoral announcement,” there was no indication from LBPC that they intended to accept an “amicable compromise” and

5040-408: The present Supreme Court Building at 1 Supreme Court Lane, the Chief Justice formally appointed the new building as a place where the Court of Appeal sits by way of a notification dated 20 June 2005. The Court of Appeal is solely an appellate court . It hears only appeals from the High Court, and does not deal with any trials or other first-instance matters, that is, matters coming to court for

5120-426: The principles of stare decisis (judicial precedent) decisions of the Court of Appeal are binding on the High Court and State Courts. Even if judges in these courts disagree with the reasoning given by the Court of Appeal in particular cases, they are required to apply the legal principles laid down in those cases. The Court of Appeal became Singapore's final appellate court following the abolition of all appeals to

5200-504: The principles of stare decisis (judicial precedent), Court of Appeal decisions are binding on the High Court and the State Courts. As Singapore's final appellate court , the Court of Appeal is not required to follow its own previous decisions and the decisions of predecessor courts such as the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council , and may depart from or overrule such decisions if it thinks fit. However, it will generally not do so without

5280-412: The sake of protecting the flock of God from being influenced and infiltrated by their teaching.” In Suit 648, LBPC sued the college directors, including Timothy Tow, over allegedly “deviant Bible teachings” in an attempt to force FEBC to leave the Gilstead Road premises. Bearing the burden of proof, LBPC however failed to adduce the requisite expert evidence to show that FEBC's adoption of the VPP doctrine

5360-448: The sentence imposed on an accused person. The Court is entitled to summarily reject an appeal if the grounds of appeal do not involve any question of law, the conviction is supportable by the evidence, and there is nothing in the circumstances of the case which raises a reasonable doubt as to whether the conviction was right or leads the Court to think the sentence should be reduced. The summary rejection of an appeal may only be done upon

5440-605: The silent church rise to wake the dead? God have mercy!” However, this did not stop LBPC from commencing Suit 648 in the High Court less than eight months later. Seet and the Elders of LBPC had in January 2008 written to their church members in “Mark Them Which Cause Divisions” that “the mouths of heretics must be stopped” within the Gilstead Road premises from teaching VPP, which Seet and the Elders viewed to be heresy, “for

5520-524: The status of the apographs, we [the Court] hesitate to find that the verbal plenary preservation doctrine is a deviation from the principles contained within the Westminster Confession." Court of Appeal of Singapore [REDACTED] The Court of Appeal of Singapore is the highest court in the judicial system of Singapore . It is the upper division of the Supreme Court of Singapore ,

5600-410: The unanimous decision of the Judges of Appeal. If it is of the view that additional evidence is required, the Court may either take this evidence itself or order the trial court to take it. The Court may also ask the trial court to give a report of any matter relating to the trial. Following the hearing of an appeal, the Court may confirm, reverse or vary the trial court's decision. It may also order

5680-650: The view in 2008 that FEBC had become separate and independent from the church after its registration as a charity in January 2004 and the courts could also find FEBC not to be a ministry of the church but a separate charity from the outset. No amount was alleged or claimed as owing by FEBC to LBPC in Suit 648. In fact, LBPC returned “the sum previously tendered” on 28 January 2008 and advised FEBC not to tender any further cheques for maintenance expenses before commencing Suit 648 on 15 September 2008 to evict FEBC. LBPC's pastoral announcement of 14 July 2013 also requested prayer (from

5760-480: The work of the College right from its inception, and as expressed in the Westminster Confession ;” (iii) “[i]t is not inconsistent for a Christian who believes fully in the principles contained within the Westminster Confession (and the VPI [Verbal Plenary Inspiration] doctrine) to also subscribe to the VPP doctrine;” and (iv) “[i]n the absence of anything in the Westminster Confession that deals with

5840-421: Was adduced in the court below and only permits new evidence to be admitted on special grounds. During an appeal, the Court possesses all the powers and duties of the High Court, and has "full power to determine any question necessary to be determined for the purpose of doing justice in any case before the Court". In particular, the Court has power to order a new trial on any issue by the High Court, except that

5920-595: Was commenced, it was clear that LBPC had wanted much more than this sum. However, after a 2-day open court trial before District Judge Seah Chi Ling on 24–25 July 2014 when it became clear that FEBC would be able to successfully make a “no case to answer” submission (upon resumption of the court hearing), LBPC requested FEBC to make an offer for settlement which FEBC obliged even though it had viewed LBPC's claim to be devoid of any legal basis and FEBC's earlier offers of settlement (see above) had been rejected. FEBC responded with an offer of SGD300,000 on 8 August 2014 – lower than

6000-728: Was educated at the Anglo-Chinese School . He was influenced first by John Sung , and later by Carl McIntire . He studied at Faith Theological Seminary and was ordained in Geneva in 1950 at a special meeting of the Philadelphia Presbytery of the Bible Presbyterian Church . Tow returned to Singapore and became pastor of the Life Church English Service at "Say Mia Tng Teck Khah" or Life Church Teck Khah (located at 144 Prinsep Street) which

6080-455: Was later renamed Singapore Life Church . In 1955, he led a group out of the Chinese Presbyterian Synod to form the Bible-Presbyterian Church . Tow's congregation became known as Life Bible-Presbyterian Church (Life BPC). He later returned to Faith Theological Seminary and completed a Master of Sacred Theology degree. In 2003, Tow resigned from Life BPC and founded True Life Bible-Presbyterian Church. He had been criticized for holding to

6160-401: Was legally incorrect or against the weight of the evidence. A sentence may only be altered if it is manifestly excessive or inadequate in the circumstances of the case. Even if the Court feels that a point raised in an appeal might be decided in the appellant's favour, it may dismiss the appeal if it considers that no substantial miscarriage of justice took place. The Court generally only issues

6240-586: Was no change in the judicial system when the Straits Settlements were dissolved in 1946 and Singapore became a crown colony in its own right, except that the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements became known as the Supreme Court of Singapore. Singapore ceased to be part of the British Empire in 1963 when it joined the Federation of Malaysia . In 1964, the Supreme Court of the Colony of Singapore

6320-590: Was replaced by the High Court of Malaysia in Singapore, appeals from which lay to the Federal Court of Malaysia in Kuala Lumpur . The Privy Council remained the final appellate court, although appellants now submitted their petitions to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (head of state of Malaysia) who sent them on to the Judicial Committee. In turn, the Judicial Committee conveyed their recommendations on appeals to

6400-667: Was to pre-empt or deter those Lifers who had stood with Timothy Tow on the VPP doctrine from suing LBPC in the courts and staking their claim to the Gilstead Road premises as Tow had started a new church, True Life Bible-Presbyterian Church, by holding worship services in rented premises at the Regional English Language Centre (RELC) in Orange Grove Road. Seet's sermon and article boomeranged on him and dented his credibility and that of LBPC as they later commenced two lawsuits against FEBC: Suit 648 in

#425574