Hassan bin Ahmad v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 18 July 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] SGHC 142
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 13 of 2000
• Date: 18 July 2000
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 2000
• Plaintiff Counsel: K Muralidharan Pillai (Allen & Gledhill)
• Citation: [2000] SGHC 142
• Defendant Counsel: Peter Lim Seng Lak and Christopher Ong Siu Jin (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether police officer intends to be bought over,Criminal Law,Whether police officer guilty knowledge,Whether receipts tainted by corrupt element,Receipt of moneys by police officer -Whether proof of nexus between receipt of money and particular act necessary,Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed),Statutory offences

: Background to the appeal

At the time of his arrest, the appellant, Hassan bin Ahmad, was an Assistant Superintendent of the Singapore Police Force. On 11 January 2000 he was tried and convicted in the district court by district judge Mavis Chionh of four charges of corruption under s 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap. 241). The district judge sentenced him to nine months` imprisonment in respect of each conviction, with two sentences to run concurrently for a total of 18 months` imprisonment. The appellant was also ordered to pay a penalty of $8,000 under s 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which was the amount he was found to have received as gratification, in default of which he was to serve a further two months` imprisonment. I dismissed his appeal against conviction and sentence, and now give my grounds.

Facts found by the district judge

The appellant was convicted on the premise that between November 1997 and January 1999, while a trainee at the Police Academy and subsequently an Assistant Superintendent of the Singapore Police Force, he had received various sums from an individual known as Chua Tiong Tiong (`Chua`) and that he had agreed, in exchange for the receipt of those sums, to use his official position to perform favours for Chua from time to time. In other words, the district judge found that the appellant had been `bought over` by Chua.

In the court below, the prosecution sought to buttress its case with the allegation that Chua Tiong Tiong was in fact a notorious illegal moneylender and underworld figure, `Ah Long San`. In his statement to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) on 26 January 1999 (exh P5), the appellant stated at para 21 that he knew Chua only as `Ah San` but that his suspicion had been aroused as to Chua`s true identity when Chua`s employees and friends had `mentioned about (sic) who he really was`. The appellant further stated that `somehow due to his kindness, I casted (sic) aside my suspicions`. The district judge held that she was unable to make a ruling because the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of its allegation was inadmissible hearsay. She also held, however, that it was not necessary to make a finding as to Chua`s identity as she was `satisfied that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt the corrupt nature of the gratifications received by the accused` (at [para ] 135 of her grounds of decision). She arrived at this conclusion by relying on the following facts.

The appellant gave evidence at trial that he first met the individual known as Chua Tiong Tiong in 1993. In time, Chua enlisted the appellant`s assistance in two of his businesses, a construction materials company and a karaoke lounge. There was no formal agreement about payment. Instead, Chua gave the appellant between $200 and $300 every few weeks.

At this time, the appellant was enrolled in a course for an external law degree. In September 1994, Chua asked the appellant how much his tuition fees were. The appellant told Chua the tuition fees would cost between four and five thousand dollars. Soon after, Chua gave the appellant about $4,000 for tuition fees for the second year of his course.

Then, in August 1995, the appellant learnt that he had failed his second year examinations and decided to complete his degree studies overseas. He decided to go to England to look at three universities to see whether he could continue his law studies at one of them. He approached Chua for assistance, asking for an advance of $20,000. Chua agreed, giving him two instalments of $10,000 each. The appellant thereafter enrolled at Buckingham University. He continued to receive money from Chua in the course of his studies. He gave evidence that, between June and December 1996, Chua gave him a total of about $1,000. Then, in March or April 1997, he discovered that his resources had been exhausted. In desperation, he again approached Chua for help. Chua agreed to send about $3,500 by telegraphic transfer to him in England. He finally obtained his law degree in 1997, at a total cost of about $100,000. He testified to having obtained additional moneys from other sources in order to supplement the moneys given to him by Chua.

Upon returning to Singapore, the appellant considered his options and decided he would join the police force, having performed his National Service with the police. He commenced training at the Police Academy in October 1997. While a trainee at the Police Academy, he received from Chua $1,000 in November 1997, $1,000 in February 1998 and $5,000 in April 1998. After he graduated from the Academy in August 1998, he was posted to the Jurong Police Station, where, in January 1999, he received a further sum of $1,000 from Chua through one of Chua`s agents, Lim Hock Ghee. It was these four receipts in November 1997, February 1998, April 1998 and January 1999, totalling $8,000 in all, that formed the basis for the four charges preferred against him in the district court.

Counsel for the appellant clarified in the course of the appeal that the appellant did not dispute the receipt of these sums, only the dates and the character of the receipts. The appellant contended that, because the sums were all in the nature of friendly, interest-free loans, he had never agreed to reciprocate Chua`s generosity by performing favours for him. The district judge rejected this contention, finding that `the evidence failed to show any meaningful repayment`. For example, the appellant claimed that he repaid $3,000 to Chua between February and April 1998, suggesting therefore that the sums received were not gifts. Curiously, the appellant then proceeded to `borrow` $5,000 from Chua in April 1998. In cross-examination, the appellant explained these loans and repayments as `how you operate in the commercial world. You sign a credit card, you pay the minimum and you can still sign again.` The district judge relied on this statement to reject the appellant`s allegation that his arrangements with Chua were friendly and not commercial in nature.

Having determined that the sums received by the appellant were `substantial` and having rejected the contention that the payments were mere loans, the district judge also heard and accepted the evidence adduced by the prosecution to show that the appellant had, on two discrete occasions, upon Chua`s request, made use of his official position in the police force to obtain information for Chua.

On 15 June 1998, Chua contacted the appellant to inform him that Chua`s brother had been detained by the Secret Societies Branch of the Criminal Investigation Division (SSB) under suspicion of involvement in illegal money-lending activities. The next day, the appellant contacted PW3 Tay Chwee Teck to ask him out for drinks. Tay was a police officer who had been posted to SSB between 1990 and 1995. The appellant had come to know Tay when he was performing his National Service with the CID in 1993. Tay informed the appellant that he was unavailable to meet him. The appellant, however, persisted. On 17 June 1998, the appellant again contacted Tay. Tay said he was again unsure if he could meet the appellant and asked him to call him again in the evening. The appellant did so and this time arranged to meet him at the Elias Road Beer Garden. Over drinks, the appellant asked Tay whether he knew that 11 persons had been arrested for illegal money-lending activities two days earlier and that one of them was `Ah Long San`s` brother. The appellant also asked Tay if in his opinion the arrested persons were likely to be detained without trial under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. Tay told the appellant that this was a possibility if they were suspected of being secret society members, for example, if they had been operating illegal money-lending schemes or harassing their debtors.

On 6 November 1998, Chua again contacted the appellant, this time to inform him that an individual known as Peter Ng had been arrested by the Jurong Police Division. The appellant was working at the Jurong Police Station at this time. The appellant testified that Chua had told him that Ng`s family was concerned that he would be physically abused while in custody. The appellant gave evidence that he reassured Chua that `these things don`t happen`. Subsequently, the accused approached PW5, Lem Woon Wee, who was the Investigating Officer in Ng`s case. The appellant was not Lem`s direct superior or even in the same department as Lem. The appellant asked Lem in Hokkien to ` dui yi ka hor tam bor `, meaning `treat him slightly better` (referring to Ng). Subsequently, when Lem went to the lock-up to bring Ng out for questioning, the appellant was waiting there....