Ng Hock Guan v Attorney-General

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lai Kew Chai J
• Judgment Date: 18 November 2003
• Neutral Citation: [2003] SGHC 284
• Date: 18 November 2003
• Subject Matter: Whether Authorised Officer's decision to dismiss plaintiff from employment was one no rational and fair-minded arbiter would have made,Dismissal from employment,Administrative Law
• Docket Number: Suit No 953 of 2002
• Published date: 08 December 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Wilson Hue Kuan Chen and Leonard Goh (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tan Chau Yee and Cindy Sim (Tan JinHwee, Eunice and Lim ChooEng)

Introduction

The plaintiff was a Senior Investigation Officer, holding the rank of Senior Staff Sergeant, attached to the Anti-Vice Branch (“AVB”), Criminal Investigation Department (“CID”), Singapore Police Force, prior to his dismissal on 19 September 2000. On 22 September 2000 the plaintiff unsuccessfully appealed to the Commissioner of Police against the decision of the Authorised Officer, Deputy Superintendent Jacob Joy, who conducted the disciplinary hearing.

2 The plaintiff was charged with “conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline” under section 27(1)(c) of the Police Force Act, Cap. 235, in that he had slapped 3 Filipino women on 18 November 1999 while they were being questioned at the CID for suspected vice activities.

3 Disciplinary proceedings were then instituted against the plaintiff together with 3 other police officers charged with similar assaults pursuant to Police Regulations. At the end of a 15-day hearing involving 19 witnesses, all 4 police officers, including the plaintiff, were found guilty by the Authorised Officer. Two of 4 officers were reinstated after their appeals to the Commissioner of Police. Like the plaintiff, the remaining police officer was unsuccessful in his appeal to the Commissioner of Police. Unlike the plaintiff, that other police officer did not seek judicial review of the decision of the Authorised Officer.

The reliefs claimed

4 In this action for judicial review, the plaintiff claim against the defendant for the following reliefs:-

(a) A declaration that the immediate dismissal purported to be effected on 19 September 2000 was illegal, void and inoperative as well as ultra vires the Police Force Act, Cap 2325, and being in violation of the rules of natural justice;

(b) A declaration that the plaintiff is to be reinstated as a Senior Staff Sergeant of the Singapore Police Force and consequently entitled to be remunerated as such and be entitled to such rights as to pension and other benefits as if he had retired on attaining the age of retirement;

(c) Alternatively, a declaration that the plaintiff’s employment was wrongfully terminated and for damages for wrongful termination;

(d) Recovery of the plaintiff’s salary and allowances from the date of the purported termination of employment.

Grounds for judicial review

5 As pleaded, the plaintiff relied on two grounds for judicial review. First, he averred under sub-paragraph 11(a)(I) to (vii) and 11(b) that the mind of the Authorised Officer was or could reasonably be thought to have been prejudiced against the plaintiff as the results of a polygraph (lie detector) test were forwarded to the Authorised Officer. The polygraph test indicated that the plaintiff was probably not truthful. As there was no evidence to support this averment, I rejected this ground. The plaintiff applied for permission to cross examine the Authorised Officer, who had affirmed an affidavit to the effect that at all material times he did not know of the results of the polygraph test. I refused the application as the introduction and examination of controversial evidence in a judicial review over what had transpired at and during the hearing of the tribunal in question are not appropriate. Such a course would also constitute a trial of the proceedings of a tribunal in question, which is not properly the function of a judicial review which is concerned with the legality, fairness or propriety of the decision making process and not with the evaluation of the relative weight or probative value of the conflicting evidence. The latter function is within the exclusive remit of the tribunal entrusted with the task of evaluating the evidence. It is not the function of a court to consider the sufficiency of the evidence, as long as there is evidence to support the verdict arrived at.

6 Colour photographs were taken of the 3 complainants at the AVB, CID after the alleged assaults. Counsel for the plaintiff sought their production at the trial, as they would show the facial expressions of the complainants which would be relevant to the question whether there were any visible injury on their faces. I refused permission as I was mindful not to enter into the remit and role of the Authorised Officer.

7 The other and main ground for judicial review, as set out in sub-paragraph 11(c) of the Statement of Claim, was that the plaintiff’s dismissal was unfair because the decision of the Authorised Officer, who constituted the Disciplinary Board, in his finding of guilt against the plaintiff was irrational for want of consideration of all relevant factors, and/or was a decision which no reasonable arbiter properly directing itself could have taken. At the conclusion of the hearing, I was of the view that this ground was made out. It was indicated by the defendant that reinstatement as a relief was not in issue. I therefore ordered reinstatement and recovery of the plaintiff’s salary and allowances from the date of the purported termination of employment.

The Facts

8 The plaintiff joined the Singapore Police Force as a Constable. Upon completing his 6 month’s basic training at the then Police Academy in July 1990 he was posted to Jurong Police Division. In 1992 he was posted to Hong Kah North Neighbourhood Police Post. In March 1993 he was awarded the Certificate of Commendation for achieving excellent service to the public.

9 In March 1993 the plaintiff was transferred to AVB where he remained in service until his dismissal, as recited above. He began by carrying out the duties of a field detective. He was also promoted to the rank of Corporal. In the following year, he received commendation from the Commissioner of Police for excellent teamwork, tenacity of purpose, alertness and dedication. In 1996 he received the Testimonial from the Commissioner of Police for devotion to duty and detective ability. He was promoted to the rank of Sergeant.

10 In 1997 he was promoted to the rank of Staff Sergeant, having received 3 dossier entries for good arrests. In May that year, he was promoted to be Officer in Charge of Team 1, AVB, responsible for leading and supervising a team of 4 officers. He was also an investigation officer. In 1999 the plaintiff received dossier entry for good arrest. He was nominated Senior Investigating Officer. In August, 1999 he received the Ministry of Home Affairs Award. In October the same year, he was promoted to the rank of Senior Staff Sergeant and was made Senior Investigating Officer of AVB.

11 At the material time, the plaintiff was nominated as candidate for appointment to the rank of Acting Inspector of Police.

The alleged incidents

12 On 18 November 1999 Sgt Tea Ai Huay, W/Sgt Eve Boon Yen Kian and Sgt R K Vicneswaran brought to the AVB 8 Filipinas. They had raided the apartment in which they were found in response to a written complaint by the management corporation of the condominium that prostitution was going on in the apartment. The 8 Filipinas were Christina Papa Hoyohoy (“Christina”). Riza Consingnado Sanchez (“Riza”), Gerson Melendres Bariring (“Gerson”), Gina Sepagan Mareon (“Gina”), Maria Rosalyn Marano Papa (“Maria”) whose mother is Gina, Evangeline Mangurdun (“Evangeline”), Ely Glor Calibo (“Ely”) and Alicia Francisio (“Alicia”). Six of them, excluding Gina and Maria, were arrested on suspicion that they were prostitutes entering Singapore illegally. Gina was arrested on suspicion of being the person who had arranged for their entry into Singapore. Maria was asked to go to AVB to assist in the investigation.

13 The plaintiff was not involved in the raid operation and arrests.

14 The 3 complainants were Christina, Riza and Gerson. They alleged that the plaintiff slapped them on their cheeks during the interview conducted in the Detective Room.

15 All 7 suspects were referred to the Ministry of Manpower for investigation into possible illegal entry into Singapore.

16 Following complaints of assault by some of the female Filipinos, police investigations were carried out.

Expert Opinion against bare medical reports

17 On 19 November 1999, a day after the alleged assault, Christina was medically examined by Dr Maninder Singh Shahi of 81 Family Clinic. She was found to have the following injuries: (1) 6 cm diameter bruise on the left cheek; (b) swelling and erythema (ie redness) on the proximal (ie the end nearer the wrist), dorsal (ie back) left little finger, with painful movement of the metacarpo-phalangeal joint (ie the knuckle joint); (3) tenderness over the anterior (ie front) of the right 3^rd rib, with no bruising or swelling; and (4) right shoulder tenderness with pain on movement, and without swelling or bruising.

18 Dr Maninder Singh Shahi was not called to give evidence and he was therefore not subjected to cross examination. However, the plaintiff in his defence called as witness in his defence Dr Teo Eng Swee (“Dr Teo”), the Consultant Forensic Pathologist, and Head, Clinical Forensic Services, Institute of Forensic Science and Medicine. According to Dr Teo, the only relevant “objective medical findings” are the left cheek bruise. All the other medical findings of Dr Maninder Singh Shahi were subjective. In other words, they were based on what Christina had told Dr Maninder Singh Shahi. The crucial point was that, on any view, these other medical findings had nothing to do with the plaintiff, against whom the only allegation was that he had slapped her on the cheek.

19 Dr Teo opined that the other medical findings were not specific, and did not support Dr Maninder Singh Shahi’s opinion that the “injuries” were “probably” caused by assault.

20 Dr Teo opined that the bruise on the cheek was consistent with light blunt force trauma to the cheek. In contrast to Dr Maninder Singh Shahi’s written report, which was untested by any cross examination, he significantly opined that self infliction could not be excluded.

21 So far as Riza was concerned, she was examined by Dr Mohan Tiru of Changi...