Lewis Christine v Public Prosecutor

JurisdictionSingapore
Judgment Date29 May 2001
Date29 May 2001
Docket NumberMagistrate's Appeal No 298 of 2000
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Lewis Christine
Plaintiff
and
Public Prosecutor
Defendant

[2001] SGHC 113

Yong Pung How CJ

Magistrate's Appeal No 298 of 2000

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Sentencing–Serious cheating–Accused showing no remorse–Attempting to escape–Whether sentence of four months' imprisonment appropriate–Section 420 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)–Evidence–Admissibility of evidence–Subsequent conduct–Unwillingness to furnish particulars when arrested–Attempting to escape–Whether strong inference of guilt–Section 8 (2) illus (f), (h) and (i)Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)–Evidence–Proof of evidence–Burden of proof–Accused switching price tag of pencil casing with one from coin purse–Cheating charge–Whether Prosecution's task to adduce every possible relevant fact–Evidence–Proof of evidence–Confessions–Whether confession needed to be in writing to be admissible–Whether confession of sufficient weight to found conviction–Factors to consider–Sections 121, 122 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)–Sections 21, 24, 25 and 26 Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)–Evidence–Witnesses–Corroboration–Accused's testimony opposed to that of witness–Whether accused's attempts to escape corroborated allegations of witness–Evidence–Witnesses–Impeaching witnesses' credibility–Whether flawed witness equates to untruthful witness–Whether previous complaint by accused against witness affects weight of latter's testimony

At a department store, the accused replaced the $16.95 price tag of a pencil casing with a $5.25 price tag from a coin purse. She then paid $5.25 for the pencil casing. However, a sales promoter, Ong had observed the accused's act of switching price tags. Security staff arrested the accused, who initially refused to furnish her particulars but later orally confessed to the switching of price tags. Subsequently, the accused attempted to escape but was caught.

Without relying on the confession, the trial judge convicted the accused of cheating under s 420 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) and sentenced her to four months' imprisonment. The accused appealed against her conviction and sentence. The accused argued, inter alia,that (a) the Prosecution tendered insufficient real evidence in failing to produce the coin purse; (b) Ong's testimony was untruthful - Ong was a flawed witness and had a previous encounter with the accused who rebuked her over her sales service; and (c) the accused's conduct subsequent to the arrest was not probative of guilt.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The Prosecution did not bear the burden of adducing every possible relevant fact. The Prosecution's task was to bring sufficient evidence to bear in order to prove the essential ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, not to adduce every preparatory fact constituting the background of the offence. The non-production of the coin purse was inconsequential: at [14].

(2) A flawed witness did not equate to an untruthful witness. The trial judge was entitled to determine which part of the witness's testimony remained credible despite its discrepancies. In this case, Ong was an overzealous rather than an untruthful witness. As regards the previous encounter, the alleged motive for lying had to be juxtaposed against the magnitude of the lie. It was absurd that an employee would, for a mere customer complaint, seek to entrap the customer with planted evidence and conspire with colleagues to commit mass perjury in court: at [19], [21] and [22].

(3) Confessions need not be written to be admissible. Whether a confession was recorded in writing, or even affirmed by signature for that matter, was simply a factor to be taken into consideration in assessing its probative value. Outside of the police station, the failure to record a statement in writing had to be assessed in the context of the circumstances. In the present circumstances, the verbal nature of the confession made no impact because it was a preliminary interview. If relied upon, the confession would have been strongly probative of guilt: at [23] and [24].

(4) The subsequent conduct of the accused to her arrest by the security staff was inconsistent with that of an innocent person wrongly accused of a crime. Her actions were relevant under s 8 (2) of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed). Conduct subsequent to the offence, without more, was not conclusive of prior guilt. However, certain types of subsequent conduct did not afford easy explanation. In this case, the accused's unwillingness to furnish her particulars and her attempts to escape raised a strong inference of guilt. Her explanations for her attempted escape were not credible: at [28], [29], [31] and [32].

(5) Moreover, where the accused's account was diametrically opposed to that of Ong, her attempts to escape from detention provided independent evidence which corroborated Ong's allegations: at [33].

(6) Aggravating features were shown in this case as (a) the accused was charged with a more serious charge of cheating under s 420 as compared to s 415; (b) the accused had not demonstrated remorse but made numerous unfounded allegations; and (c) she had also shown complete contempt for authority by trying to escape. The message had to be brought home to offenders that it did not pay to abscond and accordingly those who attempted to do so had to be dealt with more harshly when convicted: at [37] to [39].

Chandrasekaran v PP [1971] 1 MLJ 153 (refd)

Chua Kian Kok v PP [1999] 1 SLR (R) 826; [1999] 2 SLR 542 (refd)

Dowse v Attorney-General, Federation of Malaya [1961] MLJ 249 (refd)

Ismail bin U K Abdul Rahman v PP [1974-1976] SLR (R) 91; [1972-1974] SLR 232 (refd)

Khoon Chye Hin v PP [1961] MLJ 105 (folld)

Lim Ah Poh v PP [1992] 1 SLR (R) 192; [1992] 1 SLR 713 (refd)

PP v Vasavan Sathiadew [1989] 2 SLR (R) 357; [1989] SLR 944 (refd)

Panya Martmontree v PP [1995] 2 SLR (R) 806; [1995] 3 SLR 341 (refd)

Parkes v The Queen [1976] 1 WLR 1251; [1976] 3 All ER 380 (folld)

R v Nadaison [1933] MLJ 41 (refd)

Ramli bin Daud v PP [1996] 2 SLR (R) 911; [1996] 3 SLR 225 (folld)

Soh Yang Tick v PP [1998] 1 SLR (R) 209; [1998] 2 SLR 42 (refd)

Tan Khee Koon v PP [1995] 3 SLR (R) 404; [1995] 3 SLR 724 (folld)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 121, 122 (consd)

Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) ss 8 (2), 21, 24, 25, 26 (consd);s 7

Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 420 (consd);s 415

Johnny Seah (Seah & Co) for the appellant

Tan Boon Gin (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the respondent.

Yong Pung How CJ

1 The appellant was convicted in the District Court by District Judge Khoo Oon Soo on the following charge of cheating under s 420 of the Penal Code (Cap 224):

You, Christine Lewis, are charged that you, on or about the 24th day of April 2000, on or about 8.10 pm, at the Seiyu Departmental Store at Parkway Parade Shopping Centre, Singapore, did cheat one Wong Fei Hsia, the cashier of Seiyu Departmental Store by deceiving her to believe that the price of a 'Pochacco' pencil casing is worth $5.25, when in actual fact, you knew that the price of the said item is worth $16.95, and by such manner of deception, you dishonestly induced the said Wong Fei Hsia to deliver to you the said item for only $5.25 which she would not have done, had she not been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
62 cases
  • Mohammed Zairi Bin Mohamad Mohtar and Another v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 8 February 2002
    ...the fact that John had lied to his mother as to the number of assailants, I reiterated the point that I had made in Lewis Christine v PP [2001] 3 SLR 165 that a flawed witness does not equate to an untruthful witness. I agreed with the magistrate that it was reasonable for John to assume th......
  • Pannirselvam s/o Anthonisamy v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 2 February 2005
    ...2 SLR (R) 824; [2000] 4 SLR 96 (folld) Lai Oei Mui Jenny v PP [1993] 2 SLR (R) 406; [1993] 3 SLR 305 (folld) Lewis Christine v PP [2001] 2 SLR (R) 131; [2001] 3 SLR 165 (folld) Lim Thian Hor v PP [1996] 1 SLR (R) 758; [1996] 2 SLR 258 (folld) Phua Song Hua v PP [2004] SGHC 33 (folld) PP v A......
  • ADF v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 1 December 2009
    ...it is trite law that a flawed witness does not equate to an untruthful witness. On this point, my observation in Lewis Christine v PP [2001] 3 SLR 165, that innocent discrepancies must be distinguished from deliberate lies, bears remembrance. Furthermore, the trial judge had been mindful th......
  • Public Prosecutor v Lee Yeow Chor
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 16 May 2023
    ...[82]; Chean Siong Guat v PP [1969] 2 MLJ 63 at 63–64 and ; Ng Kwee Leong v PP [1998] 3 SLR(R) 281 at [17]. 69 see Lewis Christine v PP [2001] 2 SLR(R) 131 at [19]; ADF v PP [2010] 1 SLR 874 at 70 See PP v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi [2015] SGCA 33 (“Ilechukwu”) where the Court of Appeal a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2005, December 2005
    • 1 December 2005
    ...alternative charge was also possible on the facts. EVIDENCE Conduct of an accused subsequent to an offence 11.12 In Lewis Christine v PP[2001] 3 SLR 165, the High Court held that an accused”s conduct subsequent to an offence, without other evidence, is generally not conclusive of his or her......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT