Choo Pit Hong Peter v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 24 April 1995
• Neutral Citation: [1995] SGHC 108
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 173/94/01
• Date: 24 April 1995
• Year: 1995
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Edmond Pereira (Edmond Pereira & Pnrs)
• Citation: [1995] SGHC 108
• Defendant Counsel: Roy G Neighbour (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Admissibility of evidence,Admissibility of statements to Commercial Affairs Department officers,Evidence relating to facts in issue,Offences,Whether statements were confessions,Evidence,Charge of giving false evidence,Statements to Commercial Affairs Department officers,Criminal Law,Intentionally giving false evidence,s 193 Penal Code (Cap 224),Statements made allegedly as a result of threats and inducements,Whether statements were evidence for proving charge or facts in issue,s 24 Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1990 Ed)

This is an appeal by the appellant against his conviction by the learned district judge S Thyagarajan on two counts of intentionally giving false evidence while being legally bound by an express provision of law to state the truth, and one count of failing to comply with the conditions of the appellant`s dealer`s representative licence (DRL). After hearing counsel for the appellant, I dismissed the appeal without calling for the respondent to address the court. I now give my reasons.

The facts

Count 1 of the charge against the appellant alleged that the appellant on 13 April 1993 at the offices of the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD), being legally bound by s 121 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) (the CPC) to state the truth, intentionally gave false evidence to Commercial Affairs Officer Yip Chong Long (Yip) relating to the trading accounts of 29 of the appellant`s clients by stating that he had met all the 29 clients previously and had verified their particulars, which evidence the appellant knew to be false as he did not in fact meet the 29 clients or verify their particulars. The appellant had therefore committed an offence under s 193 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) (the PC).

Count 2 charged that the appellant gave substantially the same false evidence to Commercial Affairs Officer Tay Leng Siong (Tay) at the offices of the CAD on 26 April 1993.

Count 3 charged the appellant with failing to comply with condition 3 of his dealer`s representative licence, which prohibits the appellant from using or permitting the use of fictitious names to trade for the account of his clients. This allegedly occurred when the appellant permitted one Tan Lee Gek (Tan), who was then the appellant`s client, to use at least 23 fictitious names to trade as the appellant`s clients. The appellant had thereby committed an offence under s 33(3) of the Securities Industry Act (Cap 289) (the SIA).

The appellant was at the material time a remisier at Kim Eng Securities (KES). The appellant knew Tan, who was the financial controller of the Jumbo Group of Companies through one Chan Heng Koon (Chan). Chan was Tan`s husband and the appellant`s old classmate. In April 1988, Tan applied for the opening of a trading account for herself at KES.

In 1990, Tan arranged for the opening of 29 individual client trading accounts in the names of 29 different persons, all of Malaysian nationality, through the appellant. The appellant signed all the individual client opening account forms in his capacity as a remisier at KES. All the 29 individual client trading account opening forms had a common telephone number as contact number. Thirteen of the 29 had a common residential address 20B Nallur Road, Singapore 1545. The remaining 16 had a common mailing address 19 Kim Keat Road, #01-00, Jumbo Industrial Building, Singapore 1232. KES had written authorization in respect of only these 16 names to send all correspondence to the common mailing address. The names were:

Tan instructed the appellant on various dates in 1990 to sell shares which were in the names of the 29 persons. These shares had been allotted to the 29 persons during their initial public offer prior to the opening of the trading accounts.

The particulars of the shares sold through the trading accounts were:

Wah Chang Electro Plating Ltd

(Approximate date of `sell` order: 28 June 1990)

In February 1993, the CAD began investigations into the affairs of Tan under s 102 of the SIA. As part of the investigations a statement pursuant to s 121 of the CPC by virtue of s 409B of the Companies Act (Cap 50) was recorded from the appellant by Yip on 13 April 1993 and a second by Tay on 26 April 1993. These statements became the subject matter of the first two charges.

In August 1993, Tan was arrested by the CAD for making illegal multiple share applications and charged under s 417 of the PC. She pleaded guilty and was fined. On 1 September 1993, the appellant was notified that he may be prosecuted for providing false information and for failing to comply with a condition of his DRL.

Prior to the investigations by the CAD, the Stock Exchange of Singapore (SES) had also conducted its own investigations into the 29 accounts. On 9 July 1991, 24 March 1992 and 21 July 1992, Ng Geoy Hua (Ng) and Tan Ling Ling from the inspectorate department of the SES interviewed the appellant about the 29 accounts. These interviews were recorded on audio tapes.

The trial below

The prosecution`s case

Inspector Ramli bin Mohamed Yoosuf from the Malaysian police gave evidence that of the 29 names, 26 were fictitious in that 22 of the names did not correspond with those in the identity cards bearing the stated identity card numbers and four were nonexistent I/C numbers. One name was genuine and the head office of the National Registration Department in Petaling Jaya was unable to locate duplicates of the remaining two.

Defence counsel objected to the admissibility of the two s 121 statements made to Yip and Tay, and a voir dire was held.

The appellant alleged that on 13 April 1993 the appellant`s mother telephoned him to say that two police officers had come to his flat and ransacked his room. The appellant`s mother sounded frightened. The appellant said that according to his mother she initially refused to open the door, but Yip told her that it would be very embarrassing if the neighbours came to know about it. When she opened the door the officers charged into the house and proceeded directly to the appellant`s bedroom after asking her where it was. They ransacked the place. They ignored her when she asked them the purpose of their visit and only said in the end that the appellant had done something highly irresponsible and that it was very stupid of the appellant to do it. The appellant rushed back home and discovered his bedroom had been turned upside down.

The appellant`s mother showed him a letter from the CAD requiring him to report to the CAD by 2pm. The appellant was nervous and jittery. At about 1.20pm he left home and arrived at the CAD at 1.50pm. At 2.10pm the receptionist took him to Yip`s workstation. The appellant asked for Yip`s name but he refused to answer. Yip was alleged to have demanded the appellant`s identity card in a very abrupt manner. The appellant was taken aback and handed it to him immediately. Yip allegedly compared the appellant`s particulars with his computer screen and returned the card to him.

The appellant alleged that Yip rudely asked him to follow him to the interview room. The appellant asked Yip whether he knew that his flat had been searched and Yip was alleged to have shouted `You fucking bastard, stop playing ignorant. You had better own up you stupid idiot.` The appellant became nervous and jittery again. Yip was also alleged to have thumped the table and to have threatened the appellant that if he `continued to be funny` his `next home would be Changi Prison for a minimum period of six months.` Yip was alleged to have replied, when the appellant asked if he could engage a lawyer, that the appellant was a naive person, and that in almost all cases where a person is charged by the CAD a conviction `is almost a foregone conclusion as the CAD is closely linked to the courts.` The fear of going to prison haunted the appellant and he became very nervous, jittery and confused and could not think clearly.

The appellant alleged that he was kept waiting for an hour for the transcript. He also alleged that Yip switched off the tape recorder whenever he shouted at the appellant. After all the shouting and the threats the appellant felt that he had no choice but to sign the transcript.

As for the second interview, the appellant alleged that Tay offered him inducement by reassuring him that he would not be sent to prison. Tay was alleged to have told the appellant that no charges would be brought against the appellant as he would only be a witness against Tan. He alleged that to reassure the appellant Tay had left the interview room for five minutes and came back to say that he had confirmed it with his superiors. However, Tay refused to disclose the name of his superior.

The appellant admitted that he did not complain about the searching of his flat to anybody. He brought it up to his lawyer the first week after he was charged, sometime around mid-September 1993. He testified that he was rushed by Yip when he tried to amend the transcript and he therefore only did it cursorily.

The appellant said that he did not complain to Tay that the first statement was involuntary because he was a practical man and knew that making a complaint would not work. He had not engaged a lawyer by then because no charges were levelled yet and it was very expensive to engage one. The appellant alleged that he asked Tay about the passage saying that there were no threats, inducements or promises but Tay replied that this was standard practice and that even if the statement was recorded pursuant to a beating up `they had no choice but to sign it.`

Yip testified that the statement was recorded on 13 April 1993 at about 3.10pm at the interview room in the CAD. The appellant was served with an order to attend at the CAD and he came on his own. Yip then brought the appellant to the room. There was no one else present, but one side of the room had glass panels and anybody there could look in. The interview was tape recorded and simultaneously transcribed. After transcribing it was shown to the appellant, who made some amendments to it. The appellant wrote out the amendments himself. The appellant signed on every page of the statement as well as against the amendments. Yip testified that he drew the appellant`s attention to the last paragraph which states that the statement was made voluntarily and that no threats, inducement or promise was made. The appellant made the statement voluntarily.

Yip admitted that he searched the appellant`s flat that morning in the presence of the appellant`s mother....