Iris Koh Shu Cii v Christopher Koh and others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Hamzah Moosa
• Judgment Date: 09 January 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] SGMC 2
• Court: Magistrates' Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 23 November 2022
• Docket Number: Magistrate’s Complaint Case No. MAG-901378-2022 [CM-913288-2022], Magistrate’s Appeal No. 001/2022/01
• Plaintiff Counsel: Complainant Iris Koh in Person.
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Complaints to Magistrate,Dismissal of Magistrate's Complaint,Elements of Offence,Sections 182 and 187 Penal Code 1871,Criminal Procedure,Consent of Public Prosecutor,Appeal from Order of Dismissal of Magistrate's Complaint
• Published date: 14 January 2023

Senior Magistrate Hamzah Moosa : Background

The Appellant, Ms Iris Koh Shu Cii (“Ms Iris Koh”), had on 18 November 2022 submitted documents (on-line) for the purpose of lodging a “Complaint to a Magistrate” against four officers of the Singapore Police Force (“the SPF”). The application was “registered” (in the State Courts’ system on 21 November 2022 – with the provisional registration number – “CM-913288-2022”) as a “Complaint to a Magistrate” against the said four officers of the SPF – namely: Mr Christopher Koh; Mr Chew Wee Chieh; Mr Jonathan Yee; and Mr Wong Ken Jon (“the four Police Officers”). The said “Complaint to a Magistrate” was filed pursuant to s 151(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (“the CPC”). She (Ms Iris Koh) was formally “examined” on oath on the contents of the said “Complaint to a Magistrate” (together with her “Grounds of Complaint”) before me on 23 November 2022 (“the Magistrate’s Complaint”). (The Magistrate’s Complaint was then assigned the Magistrate’s Complaint Case Number MAG-901378-2022.)

Ms Iris Koh’s principal contentions in the Magistrate’s Complaint were the following. The four Police Officers had breached the Protocol – that had been laid out by the Attorney-General’s Chambers (“the AGC”) – regarding the “Legal Professional Privilege Review Protocol”. The Protocol was essentially that the exhibits that had been seized from her – namely her MacBook Laptop, her Vivo Mobile Phone and the Original Cloud Email Disk (containing her emails) – would be sealed in “Tamper-proof bags” and returned to the “Legal Professional Privilege IO” after the verification of the data was completed. This step was not carried out during her last “Legal Professional Privilege Review”. She believed that this then resulted in the “chain of custody of evidence” (that had been seized during her arrest) being compromised and that the said evidence would no longer be admissible in Court (during her trial in the State Courts). She was also concerned that the Members of the Police Forensic Team (namely the four Police Officers) were not forthcoming / kept silent / were misleading her with their reticence and had remained silent when she had asked one Mr Sivakumar (a member of the AGC Team) on Friday 4 November 2022 if the extraction of the “Golden Copies” (which is an “exact duplicate”) of her said MacBook Laptop, her Vivo Mobile Phone and the Original Cloud Email Disk (“her three electronic devices”) were ready to be “signed off” and the said Mr Sivakumar had stated that they were not ready (and that it could be done on Monday 7 November 2022 when her counsel would be present). She was extremely shocked on Monday 7 November 2022 when she was provided the said “Golden Copies” (of her three electronic devices) and the person who had “signed off” on them, Mr Christopher Koh (one of the four Police Officers), was on medical leave. She then realised that her three electronic devices were not sealed in “Tamper-proof bags” – in accordance with the Protocol – but in envelopes. She added that she was worried that “fraudulent evidence” could be planted in her devices – “as with crimes on [sic] global scale to set up whistle blowers” and that she has been “speaking up about the Covid-19 Vaccination Programme and worldwide there has been exposure of fraud and malpractices by the authorities”.

Ms Iris Koh accordingly applied – in the Magistrate’s Complaint – that the Police be directed to investigate the said breach (set out at [2] above) of the said Protocol by the four Police Officers. Her position was that, having regard to her contentions (set out at [2] above), the four Police Officers had committed offences contrary to s 182 and/or s 187(1) of the Penal Code 1871 (“the Penal Code”). (She had also made a passing reference to s 204A of the Penal Code but did not pursue it.)

I was of the view, at the conclusion of the proceedings, that Ms Iris Koh had not provided any credible evidence in support of the constituent elements of the offences – namely ss 182 and 187(1) of the Penal Code – that she alleged had been committed by the four Police Officers (or at least one of them). I found that there was “insufficient reason to proceed” – within the ambit of s 152(1) of the CPC – and accordingly dismissed the Magistrate’s Complaint.

Summary of the Appellant’s Position

Ms Iris Koh confirmed – during the “examination” on oath before me – that everything she had stated in the “Complaint to a Magistrate” (together with her “Grounds of Complaint”) and the Police Report (No. A/20221118/7018 – made on 18 November 2022 at 12.22 pm that she submitted) were true and correct. She specifically reconfirmed before me (including in her responses to questions) that: there was a breach of the Protocol (laid out by the AGC) regarding the “Legal Professional Privilege Review Protocol” – namely that her three electronic devices (that had been seized from her) would be sealed in “Tamper-proof bags” and returned to the “Legal Professional Privilege IO” after the verification of the data was completed – and this step was not done during the last “Legal Professional Privilege Review”; she believed that the “chain of custody of evidence” collected during her arrest had, as a result of the said step not being done, been compromised and that the evidence was no longer admissible in Court (during her trial in the State Courts); she was concerned that the four Police Officers (as members of the Forensic Team) were not forthcoming or kept silent or were misleading her with their reticence – and this occurred when she had asked the said Mr Sivakumar (of the AGC Team) on Friday 4 November 2022 if the “Golden Copies” of her devices were ready to be “signed off” and he (Mr Sivakumar) had then stated that they were not ready and that it could be done on Monday 7 November 2022 – and the Forensic Team had remained silent; she was extremely shocked on Monday 7 November 2022 when she was provided the said “Golden Copies” and the officer who had “signed off” on them – Mr Christopher Koh (one of the four Police Officers) – was absent (on the ground that he was on medical leave); the “Protocol Room” (at the Police Cantonment Complex where the three electronic devices were kept) was sealed each time she left the said room and she wondered how the said “Golden Copies” came about; and she also realised on Monday 7 November 2022 that her three electronic devices were not in “Tamper-proof bags” and “sealed” with her signature (in accordance with the Protocol) but were in envelopes and she was concerned that “fraudulent evidence” could be planted in her devices.

Ms Iris Koh also reconfirmed (pursuant to my query) that the purpose of her filing the Magistrate's Complaint was for a direction that an investigation be carried out by the relevant authority on the said breach of the Protocol (regarding the “Legal Professional Privilege Review Protocol”) with respect to her three electronic devices. She then reiterated the following. She had on Friday 4 November 2022 asked (in the room) in front of Mr Sivakumar if the “Golden Copies” were ready and he (Mr Sivakumar) had stated that they were not. The Forensic Team was there. They should have said so if the “Golden Copies” were ready.

Ms Iris Koh clarified that her contention that the “chain of custody of evidence” collected during her arrest had been compromised (due to the breach of the said Protocol and her believe that the evidence was no longer admissible in Court) had not been raised by her counsel during the Pre-Trial Conference(s) (held in connection with charges that she was claiming trial to in the State Courts). (She added that there was discussion during the Pre-Trial Conference on how the Forensic Team was to extract information from her devices and provide it to the Investigation Team.)

I asked Ms Iris Koh what the specific offence was that she was alleging (in the Magistrate's Complaint) as having been committed by the four Police Officers. This was after: the Magistrate's Complaint framework was explained to her (that it is essentially limited to criminal offences allegedly committed by the Respondents); and she was informed that the breach of the said Protocol (set out at [5] above) would not constitute an offence. She then stated that the offences were under s 182 and s 187(1) of the Penal Code.

Ms Iris Koh then confirmed that her contention was that an offence under s 182 and/or s 187(1) of the Penal Code is committed where the allegation is that a public servant or public servants – and in this instance the four Police Officers (of the Forensic Team) – had not assisted another public servant – and in this instance Mr Sivakumar (of the AGC Team).

I reviewed the scope and constituent elements of ss 182 and 187(1) of the Penal Code. I then stated to Ms Iris Koh that I could not agree with her contentions that the said two sections were applicable and that an offence is committed under the said sections in the fact situation (including alleged omissions) that she had set out in the Magistrate’s Complaint (including in her Grounds of Complaint, her said Police Report and her clarifications to questions before me). I informed her that: her allegations (as set out at [5] above) – including the points that the four Police Officers had breached the terms of the Protocol (that her three electronic devices would be sealed in “Tamper-proof bags” and returned to the “Legal Professional Privilege IO” after the verification of the data was completed) – and hence her belief that the “chain of custody of evidence” seized during her arrest was compromised and no longer admissible in Court – are matters that are directly connected to and within the sole purview of the Trial Court – and ought to be raised by her/her counsel at the Pre-trial Conference(s) for directions – and to be dealt with by the Trial Judge at the trial; and her related contentions (as set...