Chua Qwee Teck v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chan Sek Keong J
• Judgment Date: 29 November 1990
• Neutral Citation: [1990] SGHC 99
• Docket Number: Criminal Revision No 9 of 1990
• Date: 29 November 1990
• Year: 1990
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: PV Peter
• Citation: [1990] SGHC 99
• Defendant Counsel: Lee Sing Lit (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: ss 23 & 27 Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322),Revision of proceedings,Plea of guilty,Revision,ss 266 & 268 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Freedom of choice,Petitioner claiming to have been misled by counsel into pleading guilty,Appeal,Petitioner claiming that counsel had not interviewed material witness,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing

This is a petition for revision of a plea of guilty by the petitioner to two charges of cheating under s 420 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) involving the procurement of false work permits for certain Bangladeshi workers. The petitioner was represented by counsel when he decided to plead guilty to the said charges.

The undisputed facts are as follows: the petitioner was charged on five counts of cheating under s 420 of the Penal Code (Cap 224). The trial commenced on 11 April 1989 and was adjourned in the afternoon of 12 April 1989. On adjournment, five prosecution witnesses had given evidence and been cross-examined by defence counsel. The trial resumed on 23 August 1989 and by 24 August 1989 afternoon, three more prosecution witnesses had given evidence and been cross-examined by defence counsel. The petitioner was ill on 25 August 1989 and the case was subsequently adjourned to 13-15 December 1989 for further hearing. On 13 December 1989, the prosecutor informed the court that the petitioner had agreed to take a certain course of action if only two charges were proceeded with, two other charges to be taken into consideration and the fifth charge withdrawn. The two charges were then read and explained to the petitioner. The notes of evidence of the district judge has the following entries: `P1A and P2A. Charge read explained and understood. Pleads guilty to both charges. Understands the nature and consequences of such a plea. Facts to be tendered tomorrow.`

On 14 December 1989, the statement of facts was read out to the petitioner who admitted the facts stated therein. He also consented to the third and fourth charges being taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing and also admitted the said charges. Counsel for the petitioner then made a speech in mitigation. The district judge imposed concurrent sentences of five months` imprisonment on each charge. He was acquitted and discharged on the fifth charge. The petitioner was taken aback by the sentence, and as the judge was leaving the courtroom said that he would appeal. Defence counsel filed the notice of appeal against sentence only on the same day and the petitioner was released on bail pending appeal. The petition of appeal was filed on 12 January 1990. It set out two grounds of appeal: (a) that the trial judge had not sufficiently taken into consideration the mitigating factors, and (b) that the sentence was manifestly excessive and inappropriate in the circumstances of the case. On 7 July 1990, the petitioner, through his new solicitors, filed his petition for revision of the plea of guilty.

The grounds in support of this petition are set out in the following paragraphs of the petition:

(5) Before the learned district judge passed sentence on your petitioner, he was put under pressure by his abovementioned counsel to plead guilty to the charges. Your petitioner was told by his counsel words to the effect that `No other way. The facts and evidence are against you - you cannot win against this case.` His counsel advised your petitioner that if your petitioner did plead guilty and make restitution of $4,000 to the workers, the five charges would be reduced to two charges and the court would impose a fine, this being the only way out for your petitioner.

(6) Your petitioner thought that this arrangement has been agreed upon by counsel with the police and the court and, on this understanding, your petitioner thought that there was no other alternative and decided to plead guilty to the first and second charges.

(7) As advised by his counsel, your petitioner handed over $4,000 in cash to his counsel who in turn handed the same to a Detective Liau Hong Chang who was present in court on the morning of 14 December 1989.

(8) When the court resumed, your petitioner`s counsel informed the learned district judge that your petitioner had decided to take a certain course and a plea of guilty was taken on the first and second charges under s 420 Penal Code.

(9) When the statement of facts was read to your petitioner through an interpreter, your petitioner admitted the facts stated therein, because he thought that the issue in respect of his sentence had been arranged between his counsel and the prosecutor and the court, as advised by his counsel.

(10) Your petitioner realised the error only when the learned district judge imposed concurrent sentences of five months` imprisonment on each of the charges he pleaded guilty to ... Your petitioner exclaimed that he wanted to `Appeal` in court. Your petitioner then saw his counsel leaving the courtroom. Your petitioner`s counsel later returned and arranged bail for your petitioner.

(11) When your petitioner managed to see his counsel a few days later, your petitioner asked his counsel why he was wrongly convicted for something which he did not do. His counsel then replied `You did not give me bullet - how can I fight the battle?`.

(12) During the course of investigations, the Criminal Investigation Department interviewed one Badal who is a Singapore agent named by your petitioner and the witnesses PW2, Moqbul Moral, and PW3, Mohd Abdul Gafur, in their respective testimonies. The said Badal is a material witness as he attended to the recruitment and the meeting with the five Bangladeshi workers.

Your petitioner could not trace the whereabouts of the said Badal. However, your petitioner ascertained from Detective Liau Hong Chang that the Criminal Investigation Department had interviewed the said Badal but refused to call Badal as a witness, thereby depriving your petitioner or his counsel the opportunity to cross-examine him and to provide the court with the material evidence and facts in respect of the charges.

(13) Your petitioner`s then counsel also failed to appreciate the importance of demanding a statement from and the attendance of the said Badal at court, thus placing your petitioner in a difficult position.

(14) Your petitioner is of the humble view that had the said Badal been called as a witness there would have been no offences of cheating disclosed.

(15) Your petitioner`s then counsel, on instructions to appeal, filed the notice of appeal against sentence on 14 December 1989, the hearing of which was listed for 9 April 1990 and which has been further adjourned to the 12 July 1990.

(16) However, your petitioner is of the humble view and prays that this honourable court, under the above circumstances, exercise its revisionary powers and order that the conviction be quashed and the sentence imposed on your petitioner be set aside or such order as may seem just. Your petitioner has involuntarily pleaded guilty as ill-advised by his then counsel and verily believes that he did not have a fair trial.

The applicant gave evidence on how he had been misled into pleading guilty. In his evidence-in-chief, he said:

On that day I was in courtroom with my lawyer. Before the court sat, he walked out of court and then came back. He then told me he had a discussion with people outside, government officials, and told me to plead guilty and compensate $4,000 to Bangladeshi workers, $1,000 per worker. He told me I was facing four charges but government officials were prepared to reduce charges to two. I asked him how I could plead guilty. I told him that if I had wanted to I would have done so much earlier. He said there was no alternative as there was sufficient evidence against me.

I then asked him what the consequences would be. He said there would be a fine and mandatory sentence of one day. I was thinking that to avoid the trouble of having to come to court so many times that if I pleaded guilty I could go back to my job.

I thought it had all been arranged by government officials. I thought by paying a fine, the matter would rest there and so I agreed to plead guilty. After that I saw government officials and Edwin Chan very busy at work. My case was only case fixed for hearing. I saw them walking out of court. I saw them going into a room from which the judge would come. Court had not sat yet. I thought that they were attending to my matter. I was under the impression that they were going to see the judge and that they had spoken to the judge and all had agreed to it. When they came out, the case was adjourned to 14 December 1989. I cannot recollect whether judge came out.

On 14 December 1989, I was in courtroom. Before hearing, Edwin Chan asked me whether I had $4,000 ready. I gave money to him. I saw him giving money to I/O. They were talking. Then they walked out of courtroom. I waited. Edwin Chan returned. A short while later the court sat. The interpreter read out charges to me and asked me for plea. I told him I was pleading guilty. Two charges read out to me. I sensed something was wrong. I thought all was agreed. I thought it was a mistake. I was stunned. The police wanted to handcuff me. I then said I wanted to appeal to the people present ...

When I pleaded guilty, I was under impression I would be fined. I did not commit offences. He did not advise me not to plead guilty if I was not guilty.

The petitioner was cross-examined by the DPP. I reproduce below part of the cross-examination:

Q When [Edwin Chan] told you that [two charges to be proceeded with], did he say anything else?

A He said judge would impose a...