Neo Ah Soi v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 06 February 1996
• Neutral Citation: [1996] SGHC 25
• Date: 06 February 1996
• Subject Matter: Appellant ordering goods on credit and failing to pay,Whether court could disregard confessions after admitting them,Confessions,Offences,Proof of evidence,Whether convictions safe,Whether confessions ambiguous,Criminal Law,Confessions admitted after voir dire,Statement in appellant's confessions to the effect that he 'had no intention to pay',Circumstances of case suggesting that appellant might not have given any thought at all as to whether and how he was going to pay for the goods,Evidence,Cheating,Confessions subsequently appearing not to have been made voluntarily,Voluntariness,s 420 Penal Code (Cap 224)
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 184 of 1995
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Lee Sing Lit (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: JB Jeyaretnam (Jeyaretnam & Co)

The appellant was convicted in the district court of 23 charges of cheating, punishable under s 420 of the Penal Code (Cap 224). The following facts were established by an agreed statement between the prosecution and the defence. The appellant was the sole proprietor of Hong Joo Trading, which he founded in 1987. A course of business was established for him to take supplies from manufacturers and suppliers on credit, the terms of which varied from supplier to supplier. In October 1994, the appellant purchased a number of items from four suppliers. It was agreed that the suppliers supplied them as `it was assumed under the course of business established between` the suppliers and the appellant that the goods would be paid for. There was, however, no express representation of any kind.

In respect of one of the suppliers, Chia Kim Lee Food Industries Ltd, the appellant had given its representatives cheques post-dated to November or December. However, these were given a few days after the supplies had been delivered, when the representative went to the appellant`s shop to collect payment. All the cheques were dishonoured. However, the cheques were not relied on by the prosecution to show deception. The prosecution merely relied on them to show absence of intention to pay.

In respect of some other purchases, the appellant sold them to his customers at a loss. Hong Joo Trading ceased trading at the end of October 1994. The appellant did not inform any of his suppliers that he was closing his business. None of the suppliers were paid. All the transactions occurred in October.

The charges against the appellant were similar. They alleged that the appellant cheated each of the suppliers by dishonestly inducing the supplier into believing that the appellant would honour payment for the purchase of the goods when the appellant had no intention to do so, and by such manner of deception dishonestly induced the supplier to deliver the goods, which the supplier would not have done had he not been deceived.

There were only two issues in the court below. These were, firstly, whether certain statements (which I shall refer to as `the confessions`) made by the appellant under s 121 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) were admissible. Secondly, if the confessions were admissible, whether the offences of cheating were made out. A voir dire was held to determine the preliminary issue of admissibility.

The confessions consisted of three statements. Staff Sergeant Segathesan (S/Sgt Segathesan) gave evidence that he recorded the first statement from 2.45pm to 4.30pm on 17 January 1995. The second statement was recorded from 8.45am to 12.35pm on 18 January 1995 and the third statement from 2.50pm to 4.30pm on the same day. All of them were recorded at S/Sgt Segathesan`s office at the Commercial Crime Division of the Criminal Investigation Department. An interpreter, Toh Bee Chuan, interpreted the recording of the confessions from the Hokkien dialect to the English language and vice versa. The appellant spoke in Hokkien.

S/Sgt Segathesan admitted that he had initially preferred a charge under s 414 of the Penal Code before the magistrate even though he had merely suspected the appellant of committing an offence of cheating. The charge of assisting in concealment of stolen property was preferred for the purpose of obtaining custody of the appellant as it was a non-bailable offence. This was done on 14 January, and the appellant was remanded for a week. The confessions were given on 17 and 18 January. The charge was changed to cheating on 19 January.

The interpreter gave evidence that neither she nor S/Sgt Segathesan had made any threat, inducement or promise to the appellant during the recording of the confessions. The appellant nodded his head when she read back the confessions to him in Hokkien. Her evidence was not seriously challenged by the defence.

It is unnecessary to set out in detail the appellant`s evidence in the voir dire. It suffices to say that the appellant alleged that S/Sgt Segathesan made a number of threats and inducements, as a result of which the appellant signed the confessions. The appellant`s nephew, Neo Hock Thye was called to support the appellant`s allegations. The prosecution directed much effort during cross-examination towards the issue of the ability of S/Sgt Segathesan and the appellant to communicate with each other. The nub of the matter was that S/Sgt Segathesan was not conversant in Hokkien and that the appellant was not conversant in English, hence the appellant could not possibly have understood the threats allegedly made by S/Sgt Segathesan. A concession was obtained from the appellant to the effect that S/Sgt Segathesan had only spoken two words in Hokkien. The words were `You guilty.`

At the end of the voir dire, the learned district judge held that the confessions were voluntarily given. The learned district judge was of the view that the appellant had clearly lied about allegations against S/Sgt Segathesan because the appellant did not understand English. As for Neo Hock Thye`s evidence, it suffices to say that the learned district judge thought that his evidence was highly unsatisfactory.

The appellant`s defence was called after the confessions were formally admitted and the agreed statement of facts put in. The confessions stated to the effect that the appellant had borrowed heavily from an illegal moneylender. He had paid the moneylender substantial sums of money but still owed him $90,000. On 1 October 1994, the moneylender threatened to harm the appellant and his family if he failed to pay this sum by the end of October. In the first week of October, he was offered a job by Neo Hock Thye in his...