## Facts

- Poon Chee Seng was a Singapore Army reservist with a legal duty to report for service obligations when given proper notice.
- His reserve unit issued two separate written notices directing him to report for a physical-fitness test.
- Poon acknowledged receiving the first two notices but did not report for the test.
- Military authorities later left four additional notices at Poon’s address directing him to report.
- During the relevant period, Poon interacted openly with civilian authorities, including local police and passport authorities, and none informed him that the army was looking for him.
- Poon did not contact his reserve unit to confirm his reporting obligations or to clarify his status.
- The State charged Poon with desertion and tried him by court-martial.
- At trial, Poon claimed that he forgot the first two notices because work kept him busy, did not receive the later notices because he had moved, did not know when or where to report, and did not know the military was searching for him.
- The court-martial judge found reasonable doubt on whether Poon intended to remain absent permanently and acquitted him.
- The State appealed the acquittal to the Singapore Court of Military Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Poon had the specific intent required for desertion, including an intent to remain absent permanently from military duty.
2. Whether the Singapore Court of Military Appeals should disturb a court-martial acquittal that rested on the trial judge’s finding of reasonable doubt about intent.

## Decision

- The Singapore Court of Military Appeals left the court-martial acquittal undisturbed.
- The appellate court concluded that the State had not shown error sufficient to overturn the trial judge’s reasonable-doubt finding on the intent element of desertion.

## Legal Principles

- Desertion is not established by unauthorized absence alone; it requires proof of a specific intent to remain away permanently (or to abandon military duty).
- The prosecution must prove the intent element of desertion beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Multiple failures to report after receiving notices may support an absence offense, but they do not automatically prove an intent to desert where the evidence also supports carelessness, forgetfulness, or confusion about reporting requirements.
- When the trial fact-finder acquits because intent is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, an appellate court will not readily substitute its own view of the inferences to be drawn from the evidence.

## Conclusion

State v. Lance Corporal (res) Poon Chee Seng, SMC (1995) is cited for the requirement that desertion must be proved with a permanent-absence intent, and that where the trial judge finds reasonable doubt on that intent—despite missed notices and a failure to check in—an acquittal will generally stand on the State’s appeal.
