Leong Kum Fatt v Attorney General

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chua F A J
• Judgment Date: 21 March 1984
• Neutral Citation: [1984] SGHC 9
• Docket Number: Suit No 2241 of 1980
• Date: 21 March 1984
• Year: 1984
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: JB Jeyaretnam (JB Jeyaretnam & Co)
• Citation: [1984] SGHC 9
• Defendant Counsel: Jeffrey Chan (Attorney General's Chambers)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: art 110(3) Constitution of the Republic of Singapore,Dismissal of Police Inspector for assaulting a suspect,Ambit,Whether wrongful dismissal,Whether in breach of rules of natural justice and Police Regulations,Judicial review,Police,Constitution of the Republic of Singapore art 110(3),regs 5, 7(5), 8(4) 9 & 11 Police Regulations 1959,Natural justice,Whether in breach of rules of natural justice and of provisions of Police Regulations 1959,Supervisory functions of High Court,Public authority,ss 27(1)(c) & 28(1) Police Force Act (Cap 78),Administrative Law

The plaintiff, who was an inspector, was dismissed from the Singapore Police Force and he now claims (a) a declaration that his purported dismissal from the Force is null and void; (b) a declaration that he had continued to be and is still an inspector in the Force and entitled to be remunerated as such; (c) alternatively damages for wrongful dismissal.

The short facts are these. On the night of 18 July 1976, there was a fight at the Koh Peng Bar in Joo Chiat Road. It was believed that secret society elements were involved. The plaintiff was at that time attached to the Joo Chiat Police Station and was the Inspector-in-Charge Secret Societies in `G` Div. The plaintiff commenced investigations. On 23 July 1976, at about 8.30am four suspects were escorted into the plaintiff`s office. They were Tan Lian Ann, Lim Ho Kiat, Soh Kee Hwee and Tan Yong Chiang. After questioning them these four were placed in the lock-up. At about 1.55pm the same day Tan Lian Ann and Lim Ho Kiat were released and the other two were released later that day. On 30 July 1976, Tan Siak Tong, the father of Tan Lian Ann, lodged a complaint with the Complaints Bureau that Tan Lian Ann was assaulted by the plaintiff on 23 July 1976. On 17 August 1976 the complaint of Tan Siak Tong was referred to ASP Ng Fook Foo for investigation. Nothing happened until two years later when the plaintiff was informed by letter dated 31 July 1978, that in accordance with Police Regulations a Board had been appointed to hear into two charges against him as follows:

(a) that you, on or about 23 July 1976 at about 10am at the Crime Branch, Joo Chiat Police Station, Singapore, did assault one Tan Lian Ann, to wit, by slapping his face several times, and you have thereby committed an offence under s 27(1)(c) of the Police Force Act (Cap 78) and punishable under s 28(1) of the aforesaid Act;

(b) that you, on or about 23 July 1976 at about 4pm at the Crime Branch, Joo Chiat Police Station, Singapore did assault one Tan Lian Ann, to wit by fisting him once on his stomach, and you have thereby committed an offence under s 27(1)(c) of the Police Force Act (Cap 78) and punishable under s 28(1) of the aforesaid Act.

The plaintiff appeared before the Board on 11 August 1978. The Chairman of the Board was Supt Ng Leng Hua and the member DSP Ee Guan Chwee. The prosecuting officer was ASP D Ferreira and the defending officer was ASP HL Miranda. The hearing concluded on 17 November 1978, when the plaintiff was informed that the Board had found him guilty of the two charges. By letter dated 2 February 1979, from the Commissioner of Police, the plaintiff was informed that he was dismissed from the Police Force and that his dismissal would take effect the day following the date of receipt of the letter. The plaintiff then made an application to the Public Service Commission to review the decision of the Commissioner of Police pursuant to the provisions of s 28(2) of the Police Force Act. By letter of 6 October 1979, from the Secretary of the Public Service Commission, the plaintiff`s then solicitors were informed that the Public Service Commission had decided to confirm the decision of the Commissioner of Police. By letter of 9 October 1979, the Commissioner of Police informed the plaintiff that, pursuant to the decision of the Public Service Commission, the plaintiff was dismissed the Force from the date following the date of receipt of the said letter by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff`s contentions are (1) that the proceedings before the Board were conducted in breach of the provisions of the Police Regulations 1959 and/or in breach of the rules of natural justice or to the duty to act fairly imposed on the Board; (2) that the evidence before the Board was not capable in law to warrant the finding that the plaintiff was guilty of the two charges and that the Board was wrong in law in so finding the plaintiff and that the reasons given by the Board for the said findings were wrong in law; (3) that the said findings were so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could have come to such findings on the evidence before the Board; (4) that the plaintiff was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before he was dismissed from the Service.

The plaintiff submits that for the aforesaid reasons his dismissal is null and void.

On his first and fourth contentions, the plaintiff says that the proceedings before the Board were conducted in breach of:

(a) Article 110(3) of the Constitution of Singapore which provides that no public officer shall be dismissed without being given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

(b) Regulation 5 of the Police Regulations 1959 which provides that `a complaint against a police officer shall be reduced to writing and be read over to the informant and shall be signed by him...`

(c) Regulation 7(5) which provides that the officer charged shall be allowed to cross-examine all witnesses for the prosecution.

(d) Regulation 8(4) which provides, inter alia,that `The Board shall record the evidence of such witnesses ...` and the Board `... shall then record its finding and also, if so directed by the Commissioner, its recommendation`.

(e) Regulation 9 which provides that `The procedure of any disciplinary enquiry shall strictly follow the procedure laid down in these Regulations and the written records of all proceedings shall be set down and dated in such manner as to show that the procedure has been complied with.`

(f) Regulation 11 which provides that the Commissioner may order that a Board appointed under the provisions of these Regulations be reconvened if he is of the opinion that the enquiry has not been conducted by the Board in a proper manner.

The matters relied upon by the plaintiff to support his complaints are:

(a) The failure to give the plaintiff the complaint made by Tan Siak Tong and to hear him when the complaint was being investigated by ASP Ng Fook Foo.

(b) The failure of the prosecution to produce the complaint made by Tan Siak Tong and the refusal of the Board to direct the production of the complaint when the defending officer called for its production during the cross-examination of Tan Lian Ann (PW 2) and Soh Kee Kwee (PW3).

(c) The Board`s refusal or failure to give the plaintiff an opportunity to cross-examine Tan Siak Tong (PW 1) and Tan Lian Ann on the complaint when it was finally admitted.

(d) The Board`s refusal or failure to give the defending officer an opportunity to cross-examine ASP Ng Fook Foo, the investigating officer, on the complaint or even on the conduct of the investigations made by him.

(e) The Board disallowing the defending officer`s many questions put to witnesses. According to the defending officer 30% of the questions asked by him were disallowed.

(f) The Chairman`s frequent interruptions which deprived the defending officer an opportunity to adequately present the plaintiff`s case.

(g) The record of the proceedings was incomplete and the Commissioner of Police was unable to decide whether the inquiry has been conducted in a proper manner before making his decision on the punishment.

(h) The proceedings were conducted in the absence of the plaintiff after the defending officer had applied for the complaint of Tan Siak Tong to be produced when he was giving evidence.

The plaintiff also says that the Chairman was...