Loh Siang Piow and Another v Public Prosecutor
| Judge | Yong Pung How CJ |
| Judgment Date | 02 February 1998 |
| Neutral Citation | [1998] SGHC 34 |
| Defendant Counsel | Malcolm BH Tan (Deputy Public Prosecutor),Peter Fernando (Leo Fernando) |
| Year | 1998 |
| Subject Matter | Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Effect on public interest of discharge amounting to acquittal,Whether order for such discharge is appropriate,Discharge not amounting to acquittal,Discharge and discharge not amounting to acquittal,s 184 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Appeal,Whether order prejudicial to first appellant,Information to be given by the prosecution in invoking s 184 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) |
| Published date | 19 September 2003 |
| Court | High Court (Singapore) |
| Citation | [1998] SGHC 34 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Yang Ing Loong and Raphael Lee (Lee & Lee) |
The first appellant was a Deputy Superintendent of Prisons. He was charged under s 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Ed) for obtaining a loan of $10,000 for a colleague, from a prisoner Peter Tham Wing Fai (Tham), by showing the prisoner favour. The first appellant had posted Tham to the kitchen and had appointed him as an assistant librarian in the prison. He had also allowed Tham four visits from an ex-prisoner against prisons rules. The second appellant was charged with intentionally aiding the first appellant in the offence, in that the loan was obtained from Tham through the second appellant.
2.The alleged offences happened sometime between July and August 1992, but investigations were not commenced until October 1995 and the appellants were not charged until 6 November 1996. The case was adjourned for a further mention on 6 January 1997. Thereafter, pre-trial conferences were held on 29 January and 28 February. At the second pre-trial conference, the matter was fixed for trial from 14 to 25 April 1997.
3.On 4 April, ten days before the trial was due to commence, the deputy public prosecutor requested that the trial dates be vacated on the basis that Tham, who was the prosecution`s key witness, had a serious medical problem and was unable to attend court. Tham had undergone an operation to implant a permanent heart pacemaker and was not then physically fit to testify. The prosecution`s request was supported by a medical report of one Dr Choo dated 1 April 1997 documenting Tham`s condition.
4.The original hearing dates were thus vacated and another pre-trial conference was fixed on 10 April 1997. There were further pre-trial conferences on 8 May, 19 June and 9 July 1997. On all of those occasions, the deputy public prosecutor informed the court that Tham was still unwell and unable to attend court. The court adjourned the matter for a further pre-trail conference on 14 August 1997.
5.Meanwhile, by a letter dated 17 June 1997, counsel for the appellants made representations to the public prosecutor for the withdrawal of the charge. On 14 August, the deputy public prosecutor informed the court that he had rejected the representations made by the appellants` counsel and that it intended to apply for a discharge not amounting to an acquittal, pursuant to s 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68). The hearing of this application took place on 22 and 27 August. On 28 August, the trial judge ordered that both appellants be discharged, such discharge not amounting to an acquittal. The appellants thus appealed against the trial judge`s decision.
6.In the meantime, since 23 November 1996, the first appellant has been interdicted on quarter pay and has not been allowed to go back to work.
7. Reasons for the prosecution`s application
The prosecution gave the following reasons for their application. First, the medical condition of Tham rendered him unable to testify in court. Second, they alleged that one of their material witnesses, Philip Soh (Soh) was not available as the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) had lost contact with him around March 1997, and that they were still trying to locate his whereabouts.
8. The appellants` contentions
As a preliminary issue, counsel for the first appellant argued that the court had no jurisdiction to make any order under s 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code as the summary trial had not commenced. At the time the prosecution made the application, no hearing dates had been fixed and none of the prosecution`s witnesses had given evidence.
9.The first appellant further submitted that if the court granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal, this would be prejudicial to him as he could be interdicted indefinitely. This is because under reg 8(a) of the Public Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations, no disciplinary proceedings can be taken against the first appellant until the criminal proceedings have been determined. A discharge not amounting to an acquittal is not a determination of the criminal proceedings.
10. The trial judge`s decision
The trial judge dealt firstly with the issue of jurisdiction and held that the court had jurisdiction to make an order under s 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code. An application can be made under s 184 `at any stage of any summary trial before judgment has been delivered`. The trial judge held that under s 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a summary trial commences when the charge is first read and explained to the accused. In this case the summary trial began on 6 November 1996. The prosecution`s application was thus made after the summary trial had begun.
11.The trial judge then proceeded to deal with the prosecution`s reasons for the application. First, with regard to the unavailability of Tham due to his medical condition, the prosecution had subsequently abandoned their stand on this. The position was thus that Tham was available and was able to give evidence. As such, the prosecution`s application on this ground would have failed.
12.Next, the trial judge agreed with...
To continue reading
Request your trial