Lim Kim Tjok v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 05 April 1978
• Date: 05 April 1978
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 99 of 1977
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Lim Kim Tjok

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[1978] SGHC 63

Wee Chong Jin CJ

Magistrate's Appeal No 99 of 1977

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Statements–Admissibility–Voluntariness–Whether statement made on threat promise or inducement–Maker told to tell the truth

The appellant, a police officer, was convicted on four charges of corruption over his failure to take action against bookmaking activities. The Prosecution relied on a statement made by the appellant to a CPIB officer and the evidence of some other parties. The trial judge found there was no threat, inducement or promise in the questioning of the appellant.

It was argued on appeal that the appellant's statement to a CPIB officer was not voluntary. The CPIB officer had, in the course of the interrogation, told the appellant to tell the truth.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

Exhorting the maker of a statement to tell the truth imports a threat or inducement. The statement was therefore not voluntary, and should not have been admitted in evidence. There was however sufficient evidence for the conviction of the accused: at [6] and [15].

Penal Code (Cap 103, 1970 Rev Ed) s 177

Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 104, 1970 Rev Ed) ss 6 (a), 25, 26

Peter Yap (Peter Yap & Co) for the appellant

Loke Yoon Kee (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the respondent.

Wee Chong Jin CJ

1 The appellant, Lim Kim Tjok, was convicted by a District Court on four charges of corruption and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment in respect of each charge, the sentences to run concurrently. The four charges read as follows:

1. 1 DAC2694/76

That he, on or about 20 December 1975 in the afternoon at Tampines Close, Singapore being an agent to wit, a Police Constable in the employ of the Singapore Police Force, corruptly received from one Kee Ah Chuan @ Ah Lee for himself a gratification of a sum of $15 (Dollars Fifteen only) as an inducement for forbearing to do an act in relation to his principal's affairs, to wit, to take action against the bookmaking activities at the Tampines Close Market, Singapore, and he had thereby committed an offence punishable under s 6 (a)of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Ch 104.

1. 2 DAC2707/76

That he, on or about 2 May 1976 at about 5.20pm at Block 9 Nos 23/29 Tampines Close, Singapore, being an agent, to wit, a Police Constable in the employ of the Singapore Police Force, corruptly received from one Kee Ah Chuan @ Ah Lee for himself a gratification of a sum of $15 (Dollars Fifteen only) as an inducement for forbearing to do an act in relation to his principal's affairs, to wit, to take action against the bookmaking activities at the Tampines Close Market, Singapore, and he had thereby committed an offence punishable under s 6 (a)of the Prevention of Corruption Act Ch 104.

1. 3 DAC2709/76

That he, on or about 30 May 1976 at about 4.59pm at Block 9 Nos 23/29 Tampines Close, Singapore, being an agent, to wit a Police Constable in the employ of the Singapore Police Force, corruptly received from one Kee Ah Chuan @ Ah Lee for himself gratification of a sum of $15 (Dollars Fifteen only) as an inducement for forbearing to do an act in relation to his principal's affairs, to wit, to take action against the bookmaking activities at the Tampines Close Market, Singapore, and he had thereby committed an offence punishable under s 6 (a)of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Ch 104.

1. 4 DAC 2710/76

That he, on or about 12 June 1976 at...