Choy Kok Meng v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 16 July 2003
• Neutral Citation: [2003] SGHC 150
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 03 October 2003
• Year: 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Lee Teck Leng (Lee Associates)
• Defendant Counsel: Eddy Tham (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Subject Matter: Evidence,Principles,Conviction based solely on a complainant's evidence,Guidelines to be followed,Whether guidelines followed in this case,Weight of evidence,Whether prosecution case proven beyond reasonable doubt,Whether evidence supports a finding of guilt.
• Citation: [2003] SGHC 150

The appellant (“Choy”) was convicted in the magistrate’s court on five charges of voluntarily causing hurt to his maid (“Makanah”), an offence under s 323 read with s 73(2) of the Penal Code (Cap 224). He was sentenced to five months’ imprisonment in total. Choy appealed against his conviction. I dismissed the appeal and now give my reasons.

Background

2 The charges related to incidents that happened on 6 August 2001. Makanah had been working for Choy for about 11 months. Her routine for the preceding few months to the incidents consisted of doing the household chores from six to about ten in the morning, after which Choy would bring her to his office. She would stay there for the rest of the day and be brought back to Choy’s house only late at night. The first three charges related to incidents which happened in Choy’s house (“house incidents”), while the other two related to incidents which happened in his office (“office incidents”).

The house incidents

3 Makanah testified that she was mopping the floor in the master bedroom of Choy’s house at around 9 am when Choy told her to speed up her work. She looked at him and continued her mopping. Choy then kicked her on her right thigh, just below the buttock. This comprised the subject matter of the first charge.

4 About 20 minutes later, Makanah was going to the kitchen to change and shower. Choy again told her to hurry. He then scolded her angrily and kicked her on her left calf in the kitchen. This incident comprised the second charge.

5 Subsequently, at around 10 am, Choy stood at the doorway and again told Makanah to hurry. Makanah had previously been instructed by Choy’s wife to clean the sofa and was in the process of doing so. Being confused, she decided to continue cleaning the sofa. Choy yelled at her again and then came up to her. He pushed a coffee table against her shins. This incident constituted the third charge.

6 After the incidents, Makanah was brought to Choy’s office.

The office incidents

7 The fourth incident happened at around 3.30 pm. Makanah testified that she was cleaning the walls with a sponge which had a plastic handle. She informed Choy that the sponge was damaged. Choy took the sponge and spoke to his wife about it. He apparently got angry after that and slammed the sponge into Makanah’s left jaw. Choy then threw the sponge into a pail of water. This was the subject of the fourth charge.

8 The final incident occurred around 4.30 pm. Makanah testified that she had been instructed by Choy to clean the photocopier. Choy was displeased with how she was doing it and punched her once at the rear of the right shoulder. This was the subject of the fifth charge.

9 Makanah continued her cleaning after this. She testified that she was left alone in the workshop area of the office at around 7 pm, when Choy and his wife left for dinner. She was locked inside and became hungry. At around 8 pm, she started banging on the shutters and cried for help. A neighbour heard her and informed the security guard, who called both Choy and the police. Choy arrived at the office a short while later. The police arrived soon after and interviewed both Makanah and Choy.

10 Makanah was interviewed by one Sgt Kamaruzaman. He spoke to her in basic Malay. She told Sgt Kamar that she had been hit by a “kitchen utensil” on the face and also kicked by Choy. Sgt Kamar testified Makanah’s face appeared reddish. A fruitless search was conducted for the “kitchen utensil”.

11 Makanah was later examined at about 1 am the next morning 7 August 2001 by one Dr Quek. Dr Quek testified that Makanah complained of pain on her face and back. His examination found bruises on Makanah’s left jaw and the back of her right thigh. Photographs taken by the police hours after the medical examination also revealed bruises on Makanah’s left calf and back.

The defence

12 Choy’s defence was one of alibi for the house incidents, and of bare denial for the office incidents. For his alibi, Choy alleged that he had left the house before 9 am to send his son to a kindergarten. In support of this, he produced the attendance register of the kindergarten, which showed that his son was signed in at 8.45 am on 6 August 2001.

13 However, forensic examination of the register revealed that Choy had signed over an “ABS” notation for his son on that day. It was undisputed that “ABS” was entered on the register to signify the child’s absence on the particular day. The magistrate thus found that this part of his evidence had been falsified.

14 In addition, the magistrate also found that Choy’s credibility was impeached as his version of the events on the morning of the house incidents given in court differed from what he had set out in his statement to the police.

15 The other two main witnesses for Choy were his wife (“Ghee”) and her sister (“Vivien”). Both testified that they were in the office at the time of the office incidents, and also that the incidents did not happen. The magistrate also found both their credibilities impeached as their version of events given in court differed materially from what they had given in their police statements.

The finding below

16 The magistrate found Makanah to be a truthful witness. He rejected the defence’s contention that she had inflicted the injuries on herself to frame the accused. He also found that Choy’s lies concerning his alibi were deliberate and constituted corroborative evidence against him, following the guidelines enunciated in R v Lucas (Ruth) [1981] QB 720 and applied in PP v Yeo Choon Poh [1994] 2 SLR 86.

17 In addition, the results of Dr Quek’s medical examination were found to be corroborative evidence of Makanah’s account. Accordingly, the magistrate convicted Choy on all five charges.

The appeal

18 Choy’s appeal focused primarily on the magistrate’s acceptance of Makanah’s account in toto. He...