Lim Poh Tee v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 07 February 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] SGHC 26
• Date: 07 February 2001
• Subject Matter: Applicable principles,Consistency with similar cases,Whether manifestly excessive,Sentencing,Police officer corruptly accepting gratification -Whether need for substantial deterrent sentence,Whether previous conviction on similar offence relevant,Whether shorter sentence warranted,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 342 of 1999
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Tan Boon Gin (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: K Muralidharan Pillai (Allen & Gledhill)

: This was an appeal by the appellant, Lim Poh Tee (`Lim`), against the sentence imposed by district judge Jasvendar Kaur.

In the court below, Lim claimed trial to and was convicted, of one charge of corruptly accepting from one Chua Tiong Tiong (`Chua`), a known illegal moneylender, gratification in the form of free entertainment of an unspecified sum on a day in 1997, as an inducement to show favour to Chua in relation to his principal`s affairs, to wit, to assist Chua in the event that he requires help in his illegal moneylending activities, which offence was punishable under s 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241) (`PCA`). Lim initially lodged, but later discontinued, an appeal against the conviction. At the hearing below, he was also tried and acquitted of two other charges of framing an incorrect record or writing with intent to save a person from punishment, which offences were punishable under s 218 of the Penal Code (Cap 224). There was no appeal against the orders of acquittal..

Chua was jointly tried and convicted at the same trial, of corruptly giving the said gratification to Lim, which offence was punishable under s 6(b) PCA. He was sentenced to 18 months` imprisonment. Chua has appealed against the sentence and his appeal is pending.

The sentence prescribed for an offence punishable under s 6(a) PCA was a term of imprisonment of up to five years or fine not exceeding $100,000 or both. The district judge sentenced the appellant to two and a half years` imprisonment. After hearing both parties, I dismissed the appeal. I now give my reasons in writing.

The facts

Lim joined the Singapore Police Force as a police constable in 1983. At the material time, he held the post of Acting Inspector, attached to the Violent Crime Squad at the Jurong Police Division Headquarters. He was a key officer in the division. He was the second officer-in-charge of the Violent Crime Squad and was also covering the duties of a Chief Investigation Officer (IV).

Chua, also known as `Ah Long San` or `Ah San`, operated an illegal money-lending business from Geylang. This was known to Lim. Together, they had frequented the Lido Palace Nite Club (`Lido Palace`) located at Concorde Hotel at least four or five times since 1996. Chua was the one who settled the bills on these occasions.

Lem Woon Wee (`Lem`), was formerly a police corporal attached to Jurong Police Division Headquarters. He was responsible for investigating illegal moneylending cases. Sometime in the middle of the night of 18 October 1997, while at home, Lem was informed of the arrest of one Lee Hwee Leong (`Lee`) for an offence under the Moneylenders Act (Cap 188) for harassing a debtor, one Saithu Julalutheen (`Saithu`). Lem later received a page from Lim who enquired if he had a loan shark case. When he confirmed this, Lim said that the person arrested was his friend`s friend and asked him to help out. From this, Lem formed the impression that Lim wanted him to treat the suspect leniently.

Lee had gone to Saithu`s flat to collect money on behalf of one `Ah Ban`, an illegal moneylender, who in turn worked for Chua. At the station, Lim brought Lee up from the lock up. He informed Lee that outside people had given instructions and reassured the latter that he would be alright. Lim asked Lee whether he knew `Ah San` or `Ah Thiam` and asked him not to implicate `Ah San`.

Lem arrived at the station and discovered that Lim had already taken Lee from the lock up; he found them together in Lim`s office. A statement was then purportedly recorded from Lee by Lem. The contents of the statement were in fact narrated by Lim, who informed Lem that his `friend`s side` had already settled the matter with the victim who would give a negative statement. He stressed to Lem the importance of recording a statement from the victim which stated that `Ah Ban` was not a loan shark and that the loan was interest free. This was duly done by Lem later that morning. Lim dropped by during the recording of Saithu`s statement.

Lim told Lem there was no need for him to be present at the morning panel. Instead, Lim briefed the panel on the case involving Lee; the panel directed that an investigation paper be put up. Lim however informed Lem that the case had been settled and to file away the papers. He directed Lem to record that there were no elements of illegal moneylending, to classify the report as `police assistance required` and to release Lee unconditionally. Lem complied.

About two weeks later, Lim invited Lem to Lido Palace. They went to a KTV room where Lim introduced Lem to Chua, who was introduced as `Ah San`. Lim told Chua that Lem was from the `Jurong loan shark` squad. Lim and Lem proceeded to enjoy the entertainment, which included hostesses, food, drinks and karaoke. They did not pay for the entertainment. Instead, Lim said that there was no need to pay and that `they` would settle the bill.

On a subsequent occasion in October 1997, Lim separately invited both Lem and another police officer, sergeant Yap Chee Kong (`Sgt Yap`), to a function at Lido Palace. Sgt Yap was also attached to Jurong Police Division Headquarters and was also responsible for investigating loan shark cases.

Upon his arrival at Lido Palace, Sgt Yap was met by Lim. The latter in turn brought Sgt Yap to meet Chua and introduced him as his colleague Yap who handled loan shark cases in Jurong. The three officers, that is, Lim, Lem and Sgt Yap, then spent the night enjoying the entertainment in the form of singing, drinks and hostesses. The bill for the entertainment was again paid by Chua.

A few days later, Lim approached Lem and Sgt Yap. Referring to Chua as `Ah Long San`, he said that Chua had many runners of whom he had lost count. He told them to keep him informed of any future reports involving loan shark cases and to provide him with the names of the suspects, the name of the complainant, the place of operation of the suspects and their contact numbers. He would then check with Chua whether the suspects were under him. In this way, Chua`s associates could liaise with the complainant to give a negative statement or to stop the harassment.

At the close of the trial, the district judge concluded that Lim got himself involved in Lee`s arrest as he had been asked by Chua to help out. Subsequently, he invited Lem and Sgt Yap to Lido Palace and introduced them to Chua, in the course of which he intentionally informed the latter that they were responsible for investigating moneylending cases at Jurong. Chua had provided free entertainment to Lim with the corrupt intention of seeking his assistance in the event that he required help in his illegal moneylending activities. At the same time, Lim accepted the entertainment corruptly as an inducement to assist Chua in the event that the latter required such assistance. Thereafter, Lim requested Lem and Sgt Yap to provide him with information on loan shark cases reported at the station with the intention of passing on the information to Chua so as to enable the latter to alert his runners to escape conviction. The district judge accordingly convicted Lim on the charge of corruption.

The decision below

The district judge observed that the starting point usually adopted in sentencing was six months` imprisonment and noted that sentences for police officers convicted of corruption have ranged from six weeks` imprisonment to three years and more. There was thus no single benchmark sentence.

The district judge took into account the need for a substantial element of punishment and deterrence as Lim had committed the corruption offences in his capacity as a police officer. She also considered the fact that Lim was a senior and key officer of Jurong Police Division Headquarters at the material time and that his conduct constituted a serious abuse of his position and a gross betrayal of trust. Furthermore, Lim sought to draw two junior officers into the web of corruption and had instigated them to act contrary to their enforcement duties. His actions had also brought disrepute to the Singapore Police Force and undermined public confidence in the rectitude of police officers. Finally, the district judge took into account Lim`s previous conviction in 1998, for an offence of corruption punishable under s 6(a) PCA for which he was sentenced to three months` imprisonment.

The appeal

Mr...