Cheung Kan Lam v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Audrey Lim Yoon Cheng
• Judgment Date: 28 November 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] SGDC 307
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 2002
• Citation: [2002] SGDC 307
• Court: District Court (Singapore)

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

A series of church break-ins

1. In February 2002, a series of church break-ins occurred at night in Singapore. The first was at Christ The King Catholic Church located at Ang Mo Kio Ave 8 on 10 February; the second at St Theresa Church situated at Bukit Purmei Road on 13 February; and the third at Lighthouse Evangelism Church at Tampines Street 82 on 17 February. Three accused persons from Hong Kong, namely Samuel Lam, Lam Chi Yu and Yiu Pun Wa, were alleged to have committed housebreaking of the three churches, and Cheung Kan Lam, also a Hong Kong national, was alleged to have committed housebreaking of only the first and second churches.

2. The prosecution thus preferred three charges each against Samuel Lam (‘Samuel’), Lam Chi Yu (‘Lam’) and Yiu Pun Wa (‘Yiu’) for each of the three offences, and two charges against Cheung Kan Lam (‘Cheung’), under s 457 read with s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224). After the trial, I convicted all accused persons, and sentenced Samuel, Lam and Yiu to a total of eight years’ imprisonment and Cheung to a total of six years’ imprisonment. Apart from Samuel, the other three appealed against my decision. Lam and Yiu subsequently withdrew their appeals, and Cheung’s appeal against conviction and sentence remains to be dealt with.

The arrest

3. On 4 April 2002, the police trailed a green Daewoo, SDH 3308, from Blk 78 Guan Chuan Street to Chinatown Point. The car was driven by Samuel, with Cheung and one Chan Fook Ming inside. They were subsequently arrested at Chinatown Point by SSSgt Tan Tor Yeow and his men. Shortly after, SSgt Lukman Ali arrived and the car was searched in Samuel’s presence. Housebreaking implements were found in a blue haversack in the car boot, and a green luggage containing a computer laptop was found at the back seat. The next day, Lam was arrested at a flat at Block 78 Guan Chuan Street and Yiu was arrested at Apollo Hotel.

The investigations

4. It was not in dispute that the three churches were burgled. Reverend Fernandez Johnson from Christ The King Church testified that $2,410 was stolen sometime between 11.00 pm on 10 February and 5.15 am on 11 February 2002. Father Joachim Kang from St Theresa Church affirmed that $10,000 was stolen between 1.00 am and 8.00 am on 13 February 2002. Mrs Lam, the accounts officer at Lighthouse Evangelism Church similarly testified that cash of $50,000 and US$28,000 were stolen between 8.00 pm on 17 February and 6.45 am on 18 February 2002. First information reports were lodged for all three incidents (exhibits P13, P18, P20).

5. When Samuel, Cheung, Lam and Yiu were arrested, their passports (together with Chan Fook Ming’s) were seized (exhibits P41 to P45). Samuel, Cheung and Yiu were found to have been in Singapore around the same time on four occasions, namely in December 2001, January 2002, February 2002, and March to the time of arrest in April 2002. Lam was in Singapore around the same time as the other accused persons, on two occasions namely, February 2002 and March 2002 to the time of his arrest. A schedule of their movements in and out of Singapore is found in exhibit P46.

6. During Samuel’s stay in Singapore, he rented a total of five cars from one Siang Hock Corporation Pte Ltd. Lilian Tan from Siang Hock testified that the periods of rental were 22 to 30 January, 5 to 22 February, and 19 March to 5 April. On all occasions save for one, Samuel paid in cash. This was not disputed by Samuel.

7. It also transpired that Samuel and Cheung had remitted money to Hong Kong from Singapore, on numerous occasions, as alluded by Thng Koon Eng, who was the sole proprietor of the remittance shop, Moneyexpress, and based on the remittance slips (exhibits P40 and P40A). On all occasions, Samuel and Cheung gave cash for the remittances. These were confirmed by Samuel and Cheung.

8. Insp. Ruslan from Tanglin Police Division ("Tanglin PD") testified that when the accused persons were first arrested, the investigations focused on housebreaking into private residences and not churches, as the first information reports (‘FIR’) lodged at Tanglin PD were on a series of residential housebreakings. At that time, Tanglin PD was not aware of the three church break-ins, as the FIRs for the church break-ins were lodged at other Police Divisions. The jurisdiction of a Police Division to investigate was determined by the location of the crime and lodging of the FIR.

9. After the arrest, Lam made two long statements, on 6 and 15 April, pertaining to his role in the residential housebreakings. However these statements were not tendered in court as they were not directly relevant to this case. Subsequently, Insp. Ruslan and other investigating officers were briefed by their superior, DSP Singh, that Lam had revealed his involvement in the church break-ins. It was from Lam’s revelation that Tanglin PD discovered, through their intelligence sources, the details of church break-ins in Singapore, and Lam further pointed out the three specific churches. Thereafter, further long statements were recorded from Lam, on 24 and 29 April, pertaining to the church break-ins.

10. Lam challenged all four statements on the basis that they were involuntarily made. On 17 April 2002, Lam led Insp. Ruslan to a hardware shop somewhere along Kelantan Lane, where the housebreaking implements, found in Samuel’s rented car, had been bought. From the investigations conducted, a number of charges were subsequently preferred against each of the four accused persons. At the start of this trial, prosecution chose to proceed on the charges pertaining to the three churches, and the remaining charges were stood down.

Lam’s statements and the voir dire

11. During the course of investigations, four long statements were recorded from Lam, namely on 6, 15, 24 and 29 April 2002. In addition, three s 122(6) statements were also recorded on 25 April 2002. Lam challenged all the statements, in gist, stating that he had been threatened and beaten up during the numerous interviews conducted before the recording of the statements. The prosecution argued that proper procedures had been followed for the recording of each statement and that no threats, inducements or promises were made to Lam. A voir dire was thus conducted to determine the admissibility of these statements.

Background

12. DSP Singh, who has head of investigations at the material time at Tanglin PD, related the background to the investigations. When the four accused were first charged in court, a number of extensions for remand were requested from the court, in view of the number of charges to be preferred, the large amount of over 400 stolen articles involved, and the time needed to recover exhibits and to trace other perpetrators. At the initial stage of investigations, Tanglin PD was looking into offences of residential housebreaking involving over 20 victims, and did not know of the church break-ins. A number of police officers were involved in the case, in view of the number of accused persons and offences.

13. In the 6 April and 15 April statements, Lam denied involvement in residential house-breaking but admitted to being a courier for stolen goods. However DSP Singh felt, based on intelligence gathered, that Lam was not telling the truth and that he was more than just a courier, and ordered further investigations into the matter. Due to lack of manpower and the complexity of the case, DSP Singh enlisted the help of Cantonese-speaking CID officers to interview the accused persons. DSP Singh was not directly involved in any of the interviews, but as the supervisor, he would receive feedback from the officers involved, and brief his team regularly on the latest developments and courses of action to be taken. The interviews were conducted mainly by SI Johnson and SI Lai from CID, SSgt William Ng ("SSgt Ng") and SSgt Melvin (who is now deceased).

14. DSP Singh only came to know of the church break-ins through Lam’s revelation, in the course of Lam’s interviews sometime after 15 April. It was then that Lam stated that he was not involved in any residential housebreaking but only in church break-ins. DSP Singh then contacted other Police Divisions to furnish crime reports of church break-ins and obtained exhibits P13, P18 and P20. As a result of Lam’s revelation, DSP Singh directed his officers to take a further statement from Lam, and that was how the 24 April statement came about.

15. Insp. Ruslan was the co-leading investigating officer, together with Insp. Anwar, for these offences. He confirmed that the four accused and Chan Fook Ming were first arrested and charged for offences of residential housebreaking, and Lam in particular was charged originally for dishonestly receiving stolen property.

The interviews with Lam

16. SSgt Ng was deployed by DSP Singh to be involved in Lam’s interviews from 15 to 24 April. However, he could not recall the exact dates in which he was present at Lam’s interviews and he was not actively involved in interviewing Lam, as he was told to concentrate on interviewing another accused. The persons who played an active role in interviewing Lam were SI Johnson, SI Lai and SSgt Melvin. SSgt Ng observed Lam to be relaxed and composed during the interviews.

17. SI Johnson confirmed that he was deployed from CID to interview Lam with regard to residential break-ins, as he could speak Cantonese. The first interview was conducted on 8 April together with SI Lai and lasted about three hours. Lam admitted that he had helped Cheung to dispose of stolen goods. SI Johnson explained that there would generally be two or three officers interviewing Lam at the same time, so that whilst one was conducting the interview, the other could take notes; or to act as relief when one of them needed a break. SI Johnson used a "normal" tone of voice but could have occasionally raised his voice "a little". SI Johnson also noticed that Lam had a bandage on...