\n<\/p>\n
SINGAPORE \u2013 The High Court on April 30 overturned the acquittal of three women<\/span><\/a> who were accused of organising a procession outside the Istana to publicise the cause of solidarity with Palestine, and fined them $3,000 each. <\/p>\n Justice See Kee Oon allowed the prosecution\u2019s appeal against the acquittal of Mossammad Sobikun Nahar, 26, Siti Amirah Mohamed Asrori, 30, and Annamalai Kokila Parvathi, 37, who had been accused of organising the procession on Feb 2, 2024. <\/p>\n He convicted the women, who each faced one charge of organising a procession<\/span><\/a>\u00a0along the perimeter of the Istana, which they \u201cought reasonably to know\u201d was a prohibited area under the Public Order Act (POA).<\/p>\n Justice See agreed with the prosecution that the district judge who acquitted the three women had made an error of law by failing to apply the correct test for the phrase \u201cought reasonably to know\u201d.<\/p>\n Justice See said the trio should have made appropriate inquiries about the legality of the event, given that they were aware of a police advisory in 2023 which stated that permits would not be issued for events or assemblies relating to the Israel-Hamas conflict.<\/p>\n But they did not do so, beyond checking among themselves and their friends, he said.<\/p>\n \u201cHad appropriate inquiries been made as an honest and reasonable person in their circumstances would have done, this would have led them to come to know of the prohibition order in question,\u201d Justice See said.<\/p>\n After the three were convicted, their lawyer, Mr Derek Wong, argued for a $3,000 fine. Deputy Public Prosecutor Hay Hung Chun made no submission on sentence. <\/p>\n The three women had contested the charges in a joint trial that began in July 2025.<\/p>\n Security camera footage presented in court showed a group of around 70 people gathering outside Plaza Singapura before they walked towards the Istana, while holding open umbrellas painted with a watermelon graphic. <\/p>\n The fruit represented the colours of the Palestinian flag.<\/p>\n In acquitting the women in October 2025, District Judge John Ng said that although the three women had carried out a procession on the day in question, they had not reasonably known that the route was a prohibited area. <\/p>\n The district judge said the prosecution bore the burden of proving the two basic\u00ad elements of the \u00adoffence: the physical act and the mental element, which is the person\u2019s guilty state of mind. <\/p>\n He said that while the prosecution did prove Sobikun and Amirah had organised the procession with assistance from Annamalai, it failed to show they ought to have known the procession was conducted in a prohibited\u00a0area.<\/p>\n He said the route taken was via a pavement regularly used by members of the public, and there were no sign\u00ads or notices to indicate to or inform users that the public path was part of a prohibited area.<\/p>\n On April 30, arguing to overturn the acquittal, DPP Hay argued that the district judge had made an error of law by failing to apply the correct legal test on the mental element. <\/p>\n DPP Hay said the prosecution had stated very clearly that the charges against the three women were not for having actual knowledge, but that they \u201cought reasonably to have known\u201d the route taken was in a prohibited area.<\/p>\n The prosecutor argued that the district judge had conflated the two and had addressed his mind only to factors that affect actual knowledge.<\/p>\n He said the phrase \u201cought reasonably to know\u201d, as interpreted in precedent cases, encompasses an objective test of what a person should have known if that person had exercised reasonable care or due diligence. <\/p>\n DPP Hay noted that the women were aware the police had issued an advisory stating that events held in relation to the Israel-Hamas conflict would not be permitted<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n He said this was a red flag which should have prompted an honest and reasonable person to have made further inquiries.<\/p>\n Another red flag, he said, was that Amirah and Sobikun knew that an earlier event related to the conflict had been cancelled by the organisers for want of a police permit.<\/p>\n Despite all this, the trio chose not to apply for a permit or make inquiries with the police about their event. <\/p>\n He added that information about public assemblies or processions was \u201cavailable 24\/7\u201d on the Singapore Statutes Online website. <\/p>\n Mr Wong argued that the district judge did not make an error and had applied the correct test.<\/p>\n The lawyer said having knowledge about the POA was different from knowing what a prohibited area is.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n