Fong Ser Joo William v Public Prosecutor

• Judgment Date: 01 September 2000
• Date: 01 September 2000
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 20 of 2000
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Fong Ser Joo William

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[2000] SGHC 179

Yong Pung How CJ

Magistrate's Appeal No 20 of 2000

High Court

Criminal Law–Offences–Corruption–Corruptly receiving gratification–Police officer enquiring into status of investigations–Whether enquiring into status of investigations constituting favour–Whether enquiries into status of investigations objectively corrupt–Section 6 (a)Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed)

The appellant was a police probationary inspector. He was charged with receiving two corrupt payments and was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment on each charge, the sentences to run concurrently. The main grounds of appeal were the district judge erred in finding that: (a) the appellant had accepted the money as an inducement for showing favour to one Chua by enquiring into the status of police investigations in which Chua was interested as this did not constitute a “favour”; (b) there was an objectively-corrupt element in the transaction; and (c) the appellant had accepted the money from Chua with guilty knowledge.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) There was no evidence that the district judge erred in finding that the appellant's intention in accepting money from Chua was an inducement to show favour to the latter: at [22].

(2) The appellant had shown favour to Chua when he made at least four enquiries into the status of the raid. Enquiring into the status of investigations could constitute a favour for the purposes of the charges as such enquiries were usually only conducted by persons having an official interest or by persons having a legitimate interest: at [23] and [24].

(3) It was not necessary for the Prosecution to prove that the appellant's receipt of the money from Chua was an inducement for a specific act or favour. It was sufficient to show that the gratification was given in anticipation of some future corrupt act being performed. Here, the appellant had allowed himself to be “bought over” by Chua and had become beholden to him: at [25].

(4) There was an objectively-corrupt element in the transaction. The appellant's intention in accepting the money was to place himself at Chua's disposal. Although the mere act of enquiring into the status of police investigations was not an objectively-corrupt act, the same act in the light of the factual matrix in this case, ie coupled with the acceptance of gratification by a police officer as an inducement to seek “inside information”, would clearly be a corrupt act by any objective standard: at [29] and [30].

(5) There was no evidence that the district judge erred in finding that the appellant possessed guilty knowledge. The guilty knowledge that had to be established for a conviction under s 6 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) refered to whether the appellant knew or realised that what he did was corrupt by the ordinary and objective standard. This was a subjective test. Whether the appellant possessed guilty knowledge was a question of fact and it was clear that the district judge had reviewed the evidence in totality before arriving at this finding: at [31] and [34].

Chan Wing Seng v PP [1997] 1 SLR (R) 721; [1997] 2 SLR 426 (folld)

Hassan bin Ahmad v PP [2000] 2 SLR (R) 567; [2000] 3 SLR 791 (folld)

Krishna Jayaram v PP [1989] 2 SLR (R) 21; [1989] SLR 696 (folld)

Kwang Boon Keong Peter v PP [1998] 2 SLR (R) 211; [1998] 2 SLR 592 (folld)

Mohamed Ali bin Mohamed Iqbal v PP [1979-1980] SLR (R) 45; [1978-1979] SLR 447 (folld)

R v Carr [1957] 1 WLR 165 (refd)

R v Mills (1978) 68 Cr App R 154 (refd)

Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 6 (a) (consd);s 9 (1)

Edmond Pereira and Vinit Chhabra (Edmond Pereira &Partners) for the appellant

Kan Shuk Weng (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the respondent.

Yong Pung How CJ

1 The appellant was charged in the District Court and claimed trial to the following two charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241) (“the Act”):

Amended second charge (DAC 33172/99)

You,William Fong Ser Joo,M/32 yrs, NRIC …, are charged that you, on a day between 1 June 1998 and 31 July 1998, at the void deck of Blk 470, Ang Mo Kio Avenue 10, Singapore, being an agent, to wit, a Probationary Inspector of Police attached to the Ang Mo Kio Divisional Headquarter, did corruptly accept for yourself a gratification of an unspecified amount of money from one Chua Tiong Tiong through one Lim Hock Ghee as an inducement to show favour in relation to your principal's affairs, to wit, by using your office and connections, as a Probationary Inspector in the Singapore Police Force, to make inquiries into the status of police investigations, which investigations the said Chua Tiong Tiong had an interest in, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 6 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241).

Amended third charge (DAC 33173/99)

You, William Fong Ser Joo,M/32 yrs, NRIC …, are charged that you, on a day between 1 June 1998 and 31 July 1998, at the void deck of Blk 470, Ang Mo Kio Avenue 10, Singapore, being an agent, to wit, a Probationary Inspector of Police attached to the Ang Mo Kio Divisional Headquarter, did corruptly accept for yourself a gratification of an unspecified amount of money from one Chua Tiong Tiong through one Lim Hock Ghee as an inducement to show favour in relation to your principal's affairs, to wit, by using your office and connections, as a Probationary Inspector in the Singapore Police Force, to make inquiries into the status of police investigations, which investigations the said Chua Tiong Tiong had an interest in, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 6 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241).

2 The punishment prescribed under s 6 (a)of the Act is a fine not exceeding $100,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or both. The district judge below convicted the appellant of both charges and sentenced him to imprisonment for a term of nine months on each charge, with both sentences to run concurrently. The appellant appealed against both conviction and sentence. I dismissed the appeal for the reasons set out below.

The Prosecution's case

3 The Prosecution's case was that the appellant received two corrupt payments from Chua Tiong Tiong (also known as “Ah Long San” or “Ah San”) (“Chua”) on two occasions between June and July 1998. The appellant received these payments by way of money put into an envelope and delivered to his letter box. The payments were corrupt as they were allegedly given by Chua as an inducement to the appellant to help enquire into police investigations in which Chua was interested.

4 Senior Staff Sergeant Ong Teng Chai (PW1)...