Bridges Christopher v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 21 January 1997
• Neutral Citation: [1997] SGHC 17
• Date: 03 April 1997
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 101 of 1996,Magistrate's Appeal No 159 of 1996
• Year: 1997
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Michael Khoo and Josephine Low (Michael Khoo & Partners)
• Citation: [1997] SGHC 17
• Defendant Counsel: Bala Reddy and Jasbendar Kaur (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether actual knowledge of contravention must be proven,Official secrets,Knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that information communicated in contravention of Official Secrets Act,s 5(2) Official Secrets Act (Cap 213),Offences,Whether prosecution taken by surprise,Communicating information obtained in contravention of Official Secrets Act (Cap 213) to unauthorised person,Calling of rebuttal evidence,Whether offence one of strict liability,Rebuttal evidence not to be used to bolster prosecution's evidence,Whether addresses proven to be official secrets,Matter arising unexpectedly which prosecution could not reasonably anticipate,Receiving secret official information,Whether mens rea an element of offence,Criminal Law,s 5(1) Official Secrets Act (Cap 213),Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Reasonable ground to believe that communication contravened Official Secrets Act,Whether addresses capable of being official secrets,Addresses of persons,Trials,s 5 Official Secrets Act (Cap 213)

Cur Adv Vult

The appellant was tried together with one Ganesan s/o Krishnan (Ganesan) for offences under the Official Secrets Act (Cap 213) (the Act). The appellant was charged with and convicted on six counts. He was sentenced to a fine of $2,000 in default one month`s imprisonment on each charge, making a total fine of $12,000 or in default six months` imprisonment.

The first charge against the appellant was as follows:

You,

Bridges Christopher ... are charged that you, on a day between July and August 1993, in Singapore, received from one Ganesan s/o Krishnan, a staff sergeant of the Singapore Police Force attached to the Field Intelligence Team, Criminal Investigation Department, information relating to the change of address of one Mariati bte Tarmuchi and one Kumess bin Hashim, having reasonable ground to believe, at the time you received the said information, that such information was communicated to you in contravention of the Official Secrets Act, and you have thereby committed an offence under s 5(2) of the Official Secrets Act (Cap 213) and punishable under s 17(2) of the said Act.

The second and third charges were similar to the first, save that the information related to the change of address of one Sharon Tan Jee Pin and one Lee Tian Peng respectively. These two offences were alleged to have been committed between 17 September 1993 and 19 October 1993, and 29 December 1993 and 18 April 1994 respectively.

The fourth charge alleged that:

You,

Bridges, Christopher ... are charged that you, on a day between July and August 1993, in Singapore, having in your possession information relating to the change of address of one Mariati bte Tarmuchi and one Kumess bin Hashim, which had been obtained in contravention of the Official Secrets Act, did communicate such information to one Tan Siah Yong, to whom you had not been authorised to communicate such information, and you have thereby committed an offence under s 5(1)(c)(i) of the Official Secrets Act (Cap 213) and punishable under s 17(2) of the said Act.

Charges five and six related to the change of address of Sharon Tan Jee Pin and Lee Tian Peng respectively, with the alleged dates of offences being those stated in charges two and three. It can thus be seen that charges one to three related to the receipt of information relating to the changes of addresses of these persons, while charges four to six related to communicating the same information to an unauthorised person.

The prosecution`s evidence

Tan Siah Yong (Tan), an advocate and solicitor and a relative of the appellant, testified that, in the course of social gatherings, he shared with the appellant his practical problem of serving court documents on defendants because the latest addresses of the defendants were often not known to lawyers. The appellant told him that he could try to obtain the latest addresses for him.

Sometime in August 1993, Tan telephoned the appellant and said that he needed the address of Mariati bte Tarmuchi and Kumess bin Hashim. Tan gave the appellant their names and identity card numbers. Sometime later, the appellant gave the couple`s latest addresses to Tan, who wrote this information on a piece of paper which was admitted and marked as `P11`. The information included the date of Kumess bin Hashim`s change of address. For this, the appellant asked for, and Tan paid, $300. Tan recorded this as a disbursement for search fees.

Between 17 September and 19 October 1993, Tan obtained from the appellant the latest address of Sharon Tan Jee Pin. The appellant gave this address as Block 161 Bukit Batok Street 11, #07-78, Singapore 2365. This was written down by Tan on another piece of paper, P12. The date of change of address was stated as 6 April 1993. Tan paid the appellant $150.

On the third occasion, Tan called the appellant and asked him for the address of Lee Tian Peng. The appellant subsequently gave this to Tan. The address was Block 15, Teban Gardens Road #01-106, Singapore 2260. The date of change of address was 4 April 1993. This was recorded by Tan on P13. He also paid $150 to the appellant.

Tan was not told by the appellant how these addresses were obtained. Tan`s evidence was not disputed by the appellant. It was also not disputed that the appellant obtained the information from Ganesan. Additionally, it was agreed that addresses of persons may be obtained from sources such as private search agencies, the register of electors, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the Registry of Companies and Businesses (RCB).

The prosecution called witnesses to explain the on-line screening facilities available in the Intelligence Division of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) in which Ganesan was a Field Intelligence Officer. At the material time, Ganesan was served by Analyst Team 8. The analyst team assisted field intelligence officers in screening information requested by them. The analysts were given individual confidential identification codes to gain access into the computer system.

The National Registration Office`s (NRO) on-line screening facilities were available to the Intelligence Division of the CID. These facilities allowed officers to discover the latest address of any person and the date of change of address. Field intelligence officers did not have direct access into the NRO facilities and must channel their requests through the analysts.

The analyst and assistant analysts all gave evidence that information obtained from the on-line screening facilities was classified as `Secret`. They were not allowed to divulge any information derived from the system to unauthorised persons. Ganesan`s OC, ASP Karthigesu Paranjothi, testified that current addresses obtained from the on-line system was classified as `Confidential`. PW6 Ng Peng Kee from the NRO gave evidence that information about current addresses and the dates of their changes were confidential.

The prosecution also relied on a confession by Ganesan that he had obtained the addresses with the assistance of the analysts. Upon receiving the addresses, he gave them to the appellant.

Was the information `secret official` information?

The first question is whether information regarding the relevant changes of addresses were, or had been proved to be, `secret official` information for the purpose of the Act. At this stage, it may be assumed that the information given to the appellant by Ganesan was obtained from the CID`s system.

The relevant parts of s 5 of the Act states:

(1) If any person having in his possession or control any secret official code word, countersign or password, or any photograph, drawing, plan, model, article, note, document or information which -

(a) relates to or is used in a prohibited place or anything in such a place;

(b) relates to munitions of war;

(c) has been made or obtained in contravention of this Act;

(d) has been entrusted in confidence to him by any person holding office under the Government; or

(e) he has obtained, or to which he has had access, owing to his position as a person who holds or has held office under the Government, or as a person who holds, or has held a contract made on behalf of the Government, or as a person who is or has been employed under a person who holds or has held such an office or contract,

does any of the following:

(i) communicates directly or indirectly any such information or thing as aforesaid to any foreign Power other than a foreign power to whom he is duly authorised to communicate it, or to any person other than a person to whom he is authorised to communicate it or to whom it is his duty to communicate it;

(ii) uses any such information or thing as aforesaid for the benefit of any foreign Power other than a foreign Power for whose benefit he is authorised to use it, or in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interests of Singapore;

(iii) retains in his possession or control any such thing as aforesaid when he has no right to retain it, or when it is contrary to his duty to retain it, or when it is contrary to his duty to retain it, or fails to comply with all lawful directions issued by lawful authority with regard to the return or disposal thereof; or

(iv) fails to take reasonable care of, or so conducts himself as to endanger the safety or secrecy of, any such information or thing as aforesaid,

that person shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) If any person receives any secret official code word, countersign, password, or any photograph, drawing, plan, model, article, note, document or information knowing, or having reasonable ground to believe, at the time when he receives it, that the code word, countersign, password, photograph, drawing, plan, model, article, note, document or information is communicated to him in contravention of this Act, he shall be guilty of an offence unless he proves that the communication to him of the code word, countersign, password, photograph, drawing, plan, model, article, note, document or information was contrary to his desire.

The prosecution contended that, until any information is published or released by persons authorised, whether expressly or impliedly, to do so, the information is secret official information covered by the Act. In other words, it was conceded that once that information is published or released by persons authorised to do so, it ceases to be secret official information.

The public domain argument

The first argument by Mr Khoo for the appellant, and one which can easily be disposed of, was that information of a person`s address belongs to the person concerned, and not the government. Hence it is not protected by the Act. There is no merit in this argument. The Act does not draw any distinction between information `owned` by the government or by private persons. The ownership of information is irrelevant. It is often precisely because such information is private that they must be...