Foo Siang Wah Frederick v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 31 March 1999
• Neutral Citation: [1999] SGHC 74
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 251 of 1999
• Date: 31 March 1999
• Year: 1999
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Suresh Damodara (Colin Ng & Partners)
• Citation: [1999] SGHC 74
• Defendant Counsel: Ng Cheng Thiam and Wan Wai Yee (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: State of mind to be determined from view of effect or consequence of accused's actions,Appropriate level of mens rea for offence of hindrance,Relation to motive and purpose,Principle of general deterrence,Whether appellant's act actually caused hindrance,Whether custodial sentence warranted on facts,Appellant alerting suspect of imminent or impending CPIB investigations,Appellant senior police inspector,Provision silent with respect to mens rea,Intention, knowledge, and reason to believe,Offence of hindrance,Whether necessary for investigating officer to engage in any specific duty at time of obstruction,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Actus reus requirements,Criminal Law,Mens rea requirement,Whether accused has knowledge that act of tipping-off will render CPIB investigations substantially more difficult,Corruption,Sentencing,Whether necessary for appellant to direct his actions at any specific officer,Whether hindrance successful material,Public servant extra-susceptible to receiving bribes in exchange for information on status of investigations- Punishment of fine insufficient deterrence on persons similarly situated,Elements of crime

: The appellant was tried and convicted in the court below of the following amended charge under s 26(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241) (`the PCA`):

You, Foo Siang Wah Frederick, M/41 yrs, are charged that you, on 15 October 1998 between 3pm and 4pm, at the Tanglin Police Station located at No 17 Napier Road, Singapore, did knowingly hinder the investigations by officers of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau into criminal allegations against one Teo Eng Teck, to wit, by alerting Teo Eng Teck of an investigation against him by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau and suggesting that he destroy incriminating evidence so as to frustrate the investigations, and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 26(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241).

He was sentenced to six weeks` imprisonment. The appellant appealed against both his conviction and the sentenced imposed. At the end of the hearing, I dismissed the appeal against conviction but allowed the appeal against sentence. I now give my reasons.

The background facts

The appellant was an Inspector of Police at the Tanglin Police Division. He served as the officer-in-charge of the violent crime squad. The squad was made up of seven investigators. The appellant was the Senior Investigation Officer in the squad.

On 15 October 1998, Inspector Elangovan (`PW2`), the designated Chief Investigation Officer (`CIO(IV)`) of the Tanglin Police Division was on leave. The appellant was tasked with covering his duties pursuant to the normal course of things. The CIO(IV) has an estimated 20 to 25 officers under him, which officers come from the general investigation team, and the shoplifting squad.

One Teo Eng Teck (PW7) (`David Teo`) was at that time a sergeant with the Tanglin Police Division. He was attached to the shoplifting squad.

Earlier on, in April 1998, one Josephine Yap Kah Peng (PW4) (`Jo`) and one Angie Ang Kok Ping (`Angie`) were arrested for shoplifting items totalling more than $400. The investigation officer assigned to investigate their case was David Teo.

In May 1998, David Teo began soliciting for sex from Jo and Angie, in return for promises to get them off completely or alternatively for letting them off with a warning in respect of their shoplifting cases. He also fraternised with them.

Between 3 and 4pm on 15 October 1998, Jo and Angie went to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (`CPIB`) to lodge a complaint against David Teo. They were accompanied by one Mohamad Shairi (PW5) (`Shairi`) and two others.

While at the CPIB, Jo received a page from David Teo at or around 6.45pm. She returned the page and allowed the CPIB officers to tape the ensuing conversation, the transcript of which was admitted into evidence. David Teo revealed during the course of the conversation that he was under investigation by the CPIB. He said that he had received the news at around 4pm that same day from one of his CIOs, who had further asked him to rush back home and ` clear all the stuff in [his] house, [including] whatever police thing ` that he had brought home. It was further recorded in the transcript that David Teo had heard from his CIO that `they` were going to raid his house. When Jo asked if he had already gone home, David Teo replied that he had ` done all the thing, burn all the thing `ready `.

At around 7.30pm on the same day, Senior Special Investigator Wong Pong Yen (PW3) (`SSI Wong`) of the CPIB went down to the Tanglin Police Division to meet the Commander to request for his help in picking up David Teo. The Commander thereafter instructed the appellant to call David Teo back to the station. When David Teo arrived, SSI Wong searched his desk, drawers, cabinet and car to gather evidence against him for corruption. The next morning, SSI Wong conducted a search at David Teo`s house.

David Teo was eventually charged with six counts of corruption by the CPIB after six months of investigation. He pleaded guilty to three charges and consented to the remaining three being taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing. All the charges related to obtaining sexual gratification. He was sentenced to a total of 20 months` imprisonment.

The appellant meanwhile was taken in for questioning at the CPIB at about 9.30 or 10am on 16 October 1998. He remained there for about 16 hours, after which time a statement was recorded from him at 1.50am on the morning of 17 October 1998 (`the CPIB statement`). He was eventually charged in court on 30 June 1999, and interdicted on 1 August 1999.

The prosecution`s case

The prosecution led evidence from a total of eight witnesses. The crux of their case however rested on the evidence of David Teo and one Mohd Jahabar bin Mohd Selleh (PW6) (`Jahabar`).

Jahabar`s evidence

Jahabar testified that he was a former senior investigation officer in the violent crime squad of the Tanglin Police Division. He tendered his resignation on 1 October 1998. Sometime in August 1998, Shairi introduced him to Jo and Angie. Between late August and September 1998, Jo and Angie informed Jahabar that David Teo was a lecher who was soliciting sex from them. The girls also claimed that David Teo had asked them for gifts and had brought them to watch obscene movies. Upon hearing this, Jahabar advised the women to lodge a report with the CPIB. The girls were hesitant and replied that they were not ready to do so. They were also afraid of repercussions as their shoplifting cases were still outstanding at that time.

On 15 October 1998, at some time before 3pm, Jahabar made one of his usual calls to the appellant. He had been calling the appellant regularly to inquire about the status of his resignation as well as certain disciplinary proceedings instituted against him by the Force. During this conversation, Jahabar also sought the appellant`s help to pay on his behalf an outstanding amount of $20 to the shopkeeper. During the course of the conversation, Jahabar was informed by the appellant that the latter was covering the post of CIO(IV) as Insp Elangovan was on leave. Upon hearing this, Jahabar recalled what Jo and Angie had told him previously, that David Teo was waiting for Insp Elangovan to go on leave or be transferred out before taking the opportunity to manipulate the investigation papers involving the two girls and present them to the covering CIO(IV). As such, Jahabar informed the appellant to be wary of any investigation papers presented to him by David Teo. Upon further probing by the DPP, Jahabar revealed:

A ... I informed accused that I knew two girls, namely, Jo and Angie and that those two girls had informed me that they would be investigated by David Teo. David Teo had solicited for sexual favours. I also informed the accused about obscene VCDs as I recalled the girls had informed me they had watched obscene VCDs with David Teo. I felt that David Teo`s immediate superior on that day, the accused, should know and he should not be misled by David Teo. I also told accused that there are investigators watching obscene videos in the station.

In cross-examination, Jahabar added that he had informed the appellant that Jo and Angie were contemplating reporting the matter to the CPIB. He agreed however that the appellant had told him that he was very busy that day and that there were a lot of investigators queuing up for him with their investigation papers. The appellant also did not appear to be very responsive to what Jahabar was saying. In fact, when Jahabar started to talk about the matter concerning David Teo, the appellant merely interjected with the cursory `ah`, `okay`, `hmm`, `yeah` and Jahabar himself got the impression that the appellant was not taking the matter seriously. He also agreed that the office of the violent crime squad was normally very noisy and could not be sure if the appellant had heard everything he said.

After getting off the phone with the appellant, Jahabar contacted Insp Elangovan and related to him the same things which he had just told the appellant concerning David Teo. Jahabar testified that he felt the need to inform Insp Elangovan of this matter as he was of the view that the appellant had not taken him seriously. Before ending the conversation, Insp Elangovan uttered the words `serious ah` and asserted that he would pass the information on to the Commander.

David Teo`s evidence

David Teo gave evidence that on 15 October 1998, he received a call from the appellant at around 3pm in the afternoon whilst he was in the office. The appellant asked David Teo to meet him in the staff canteen on the third floor. David Teo went immediately. Upon arriving at the canteen, David Teo called for a drink. The appellant then came from the back and ordered his own drink before both men sat down. David Teo began the conversation by asking `Sir, what is going on? What happened?`, at which point the appellant told him that he heard that David Teo was under investigation by `Uncle Sam`, a term which David Teo understood to mean the CPIB. David Teo then asked the appellant who lodged the complaint against him to which the latter replied that he did not know and that he had just heard about it. Thereafter, the appellant told David Teo that, if they could not get him for the main complaint, they would go against him for all the smaller things, such as failing to update his police pocket book. The appellant further advised David Teo to get rid of anything which he should not have. When asked if the appellant went into the details of what he should get rid of, David Teo cited uncensored video compact discs (`VCDs`), police files or investigation papers which he had brought home, and basically anything else which might lead to a departmental action being taken against him.

Upon hearing all this, David Teo was seized with fear and guilt. He maintained however that he did not show his fear or guilt as he believed that the...