Narindar Singh v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 15 October 1996
• Neutral Citation: [1996] SGHC 233
• Date: 15 October 1996
• Subject Matter: s 5 Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241),Corruption,Sentencing,s 5(a)(i) Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241),Whether district judge erred in accepting prosecution's evidence,Corruptly soliciting gratification,'Corruptly','In conjunction with',Whether 'in conjunction with' included acts of agents who acted on instructions of their principals in carrying out corrupt acts,Allegation that accused acted in conjunction with his client to corruptly solicit gratification from family of another condemned prisoner in return for written statement by his client exonerating other prisoner from complicity in drug offences,Lawyer corruptly soliciting gratification,Whether sentence of five months' imprisonment manifestly excessive,s 5(a)(i)Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241),Whether accused acted in conjunction with client,'Any matter or transaction whatsoever',Criminal Law,Statutory offences,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Words and Phrases
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 403 of 1995
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Ng Cheng Thiam (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Sir Allan Green QC, Giam Chin Toon and Tan Soo Kiang

Cur Adv Vult

The appellant, an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court, was convicted in the district court on the following charge:

You, Narinder Singh s/o Malagar Singh, M/45 years, NRIC No S2000696Z, are charged that you in conjunction with one Hartej Singh Sidhu, a condemned prisoner, on 18 May 1995, at or about 5pm, at Changi Prison, Jalan Awan, Singapore, did corruptly solicit for the family of the said Hartej Singh Sidhu, a gratification, to wit, a sum of $100,000 from one Baldev Singh, the son of another condemned prisoner, Sarjit Singh s/o Anokh Singh, on account of Hartej Singh Sidhu exonerating the said Sarjit Singh s/o Anokh Singh by his signed statement, to wit,

OI, Hartej Singh Sidhu c/o Changi Prison Cond No 476/93 hereby state that Sarjit Singh c/o Changi Prison Cond No 477/93 is innocent and was not involved in the drug trafficking transaction. The transaction was done by me solely.`

of any complicity in the drug trafficking transaction concerned in Criminal Case No 52 of 1991 and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 5(a)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241).

Upon his conviction, the appellant was sentenced to five months` imprisonment. He appealed against both conviction and sentence.

The undisputed facts

The undisputed facts of the case were as follows. Hartej Singh Sidhu (Hartej) and Sarjit Singh s/o Anokh Singh (Sarjit) were both convicted on 21 January 1993 by the High Court on two charges of trafficking in 600.8g of diamorphine and 9,371g of opium. They were then represented by assigned counsel John Abraham (Abraham) and Subhas Anandan (Subhas) respectively. Both appealed against their convictions and the death sentences imposed. On appeal the counsel assigned to act for Hartej was the appellant, whilst the counsel assigned to Sarjit was NK Rajah (Rajah). Both appeals were dismissed on 16 May 1994.

Subsequently the appellant and Rajah were further assigned to act for Hartej and Sarjit respectively in the preparation of their petitions for clemency to the President. Both petitions were rejected by the President and the two men were told that they would be executed on 19 May 1995. The prosecution`s and the appellant`s accounts of what then transpired differed in crucial aspects; and since one of the appellant`s main grounds of appeal relied on the contention that the district judge should have accepted his versions of events, I shall set out both versions in some detail.

The prosecution`s version of events

The prosecution`s version of the events leading up to the offence on 18 May 1995 was drawn mainly from the evidence of Sarjit`s son Baldev Singh (Baldev) and Sarjit`s lawyer, Rajah.

Baldev`s evidence

Baldev gave evidence that on 18 May 1996, he went to Changi Prison to visit his father at about 1.30pm. He was accosted by his mother, who informed him that Sarjit wished to speak to him urgently and that Othe other accused Hartej had written on a small slip of paper in Punjabi that the [sic] takes the blame`. Baldev immediately telephoned Rajah to tell him about this. According to Baldev, Rajah told him Oit would not work É the execution would not be stopped`. In response to Baldev`s query, Rajah also said that he was not in touch with the appellant. Baldev subsequently telephoned the appellant`s office and left him a message to the effect that he should come to Changi Prison as soon as possible.

The piece of paper on which Hartej had allegedly written down his intention to Otake the blame` was exhibited in court as D1. The translation exhibited as D1T shows, in fact, no such intention. All that Hartej said was:

In my opinion it should be this way: that both our counsels should discuss with one another about our case and assess as to which one of us can be saved.

Rajah and the appellant arrived at Changi Prison together in the afternoon of 18 May 1995. They proceeded to the visiting area to see their respective clients. According to Baldev, Sarjit was then seated in Othe extreme left cubicle` whilst Hartej was in Othe extreme right cubicle` (there being five cubicles altogether in the visiting area). Rajah and the appellant went to their respective client`s cubicles. Sarjit showed Oa slip of paper` to Rajah and told him that Hartej was prepared to take the blame. Rajah replied that nothing was going to work and that Sarjit should Ojust prepare for tomorrow`. Some discussion followed between Sarjit and Rajah, following which Rajah stepped outside the cubicle. Baldev presumed at this stage that he had gone to talk to the appellant, although he did not actually see this. When Rajah returned, he said that the appellant Owould take (Sarjit`s) statement` whilst he (Rajah) would take Hartej`s statement. Although this account is somewhat garbled, what Baldev appeared to be saying was that Rajah had stated that both Sarjit and Hartej were to make statements each exonerating the other of blame in the drug trafficking offence. This was not done.

Baldev then left the visiting area with his family. He waited for Rajah at the waiting area outside the main gate of Changi Prison. When Rajah came out, he was with the appellant who proceeded to call Baldev aside. At this point Rajah and another lawyer Thangavelu were also present. According to Baldev:

[the appellant] said that Hartej Singh had written a letter demanding for $100,000 and that he had taken the blame for $100,000. I think it was in Singapore currency. My reply was that it was too much money and I asked whether there was any guarantee that my father`s life would be saved. NS Kang said there is no guarantee for anything É NK Rajah said that this is all nonsense and just to prepare for tomorrow. NK Rajah did not ask me to pay the money. NK Rajah just said it was all nonsense and just to prepare for tomorrow É

On my way home NK Rajah paged for me. I returned his call. He told me ODon`t be worried and just prepare for tomorrow`. I asked him whether there was any way he could stop the execution. He told me nothing could be done and just to prepare for tomorrow.

On the evening of the same day, Baldev telephoned the appellant and asked if there was any way he could help. He was told to go to the appellant`s office, where he again asked the appellant whether the appellant could Ohelp to stop the execution`. In response the appellant asked him if he agreed with Hartej`s demand for money. Baldev stated that they could Otalk about the money later but try to stop the execution`. He asked the appellant whether Oif the 100,000 is given would (Sarjit`s) life be spared` and was again met with the reply that there could be no such guarantee. Both the appellant and Baldev then made unsuccessful attempts to contact Rajah, after which Baldev left the appellant`s office.

In addition to the above evidence, Baldev also testified that sometime in August 1994 he had visited the appellant`s office in the company of one Kaka Singh. He made this visit because, on that same day, he had seen his father at Changi Prison and his father had told him that Hartej Owanted to take the blame` in return for 100,000 rupees. Baldev relayed this to the appellant and indicated his willingness to pay the 100,000 rupees if his father`s life could be saved. Baldev stated that the appellant said he Owould think about it`. Under cross-examination he added that the appellant had also counter-offered 200,000 rupees on Hartej`s behalf, in return for a statement from Sarjit exonerating Hartej. Thereafter, it appears that Baldev visited the appellant one more time and reminded him to go and see Hartej. The appellant obtained from Baldev $500 as a fee for doing so, but later told Baldev that he did not have time to see Hartej and refunded the $500.

Under cross-examination, Baldev stated that he had discussed with Rajah on two or three occasions the possibility of getting a statement from Hartej which would exonerate his father of involvement in the drug trafficking offence. He could not recall whether, in the course of these discussions, he had told Rajah about the 100,000 rupees demanded by Hartej. He stated that Rajah had told him to see the appellant as he (Rajah) did not want to get involved. He could not remember whether he told Rajah about the outcome of his visit to the appellant`s office in August 1994. He claimed, however, that prior to 18 May 1995 he had already told Rajah about the $500 fee he paid the appellant.

Rajah`s evidence

According to Rajah, he received three telephone calls from Baldev on 18 May 1995. The first telephone call was at about 11.30am. During this call, Baldev told Rajah that Hartej had now confessed Oto taking the blame` for the drug trafficking offence and that Sarjit Ohad a document written in Punjabi`. Rajah replied that a confession from Hartej would not work because of Othe nature of the evidence` in the case. Five minutes later, however, Baldev called again with the message that Sarjit insisted on Rajah coming to see him. Rajah replied that he would fax the record office of Changi Prison for a copy of the Punjabi document. He did in fact send such a fax (exh P3A). He also asked his colleague Thangavelu to bring the original of the faxed letter to the prison record office, since Thangavelu was going to visit his own client at the prison.

At about 2 to 2.15pm, according to Rajah, Baldev called him again and asked him to come to the prison. Baldev also told him to Ocall [the appellant] to find out what was happening`. Rajah managed to contact the appellant, who said that he would be visiting his client and who asked him to Ocome along so that [they] can resolve this matter`. On finding out that Rajah did not have any transport of his own, the appellant offered him a lift. The appellant also asked Rajah to bring along his firm`s letterhead, adding that he too would bring his Oin case there would be any statement or confession`.

The appellant picked Rajah up at...