Ong Foo Keow v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lee-Khoo Poh Choo
• Judgment Date: 12 September 2003
• Neutral Citation: [2003] SGDC 214
• Published date: 02 October 2003
• Year: 2003
• Citation: [2003] SGDC 214
• Plaintiff Counsel: Appellant in person
• Court: District Court (Singapore)

This is an appeal against my order of forfeiture of the full bail bond of $5,000.00 in respect of a show cause proceedings.

Background

2 The Accused named Yap Siew Tin, faced 2 charges of theft under section 380 of the Penal Code. The Appellant stood bail for $5,000.00 while one Toh Min Wei Kelly stood bail for $6,000.00. On 7 January 2002, the Accused pleaded guilty to one charge of theft under section 380 of the Penal Code and consented to the other charge being taken into consideration. The Accused was not represented by counsel and she asked for time to prepare her mitigation. I allowed her application and adjourned mitigation and sentencing to 9 a.m. of the following day, and extended bail.

3 The Accused failed to attend court the next day. At 11.15 a.m. I decided to issue a warrant for her arrest. Both sureties were called but there was no response, indicating they were not within nor in the vicinity of the trial court. Notice to Surety on Breach of Bond were served on both sureties. On 18 February 2002, after hearing the surety, Toh Min Wei Kelly, I ordered the full forfeiture of his bail bond ($6,000.00).

4 The Appellant failed to attend court on 8 July 2003 for her show cause proceedings and I ordered the forfeiture of full bail bond of $5,000.00. On 16 July 2003, the Appellant sent a written appeal stating that she did not receive any correspondence pertaining to the matter. Records show that the Notice which was sent by registered post was left ‘Unclaimed’ at the post office. I decided to give her another opportunity and heard her application on 5 August 2003.

5 The Appellant was in person. She claimed that she followed the Accused to the Subordinate Courts on 7 January 2002 (i.e. the day of the trial) but she did not enter the Subordinate Courts building. Instead, she waited outside the building as the Accused told her to wait outside. To my question whether she was stopped or prevented by any person from entering the Subordinate Courts building, she answered that nobody stopped her from entering.

6 In mitigation, the Appellant said she was in the business of providing part time local maids to Singaporeans and that business was poor. The Accused was her free lance worker. She also said that the sum of $6,000.00 had already been forfeited from the other surety, Toh Min Wei Kelly.

Applicable law and decision of the court

7 The Courts take a very serious view of the obligation of the surety to ensure the attendance of an Accused in court and had repeatedly emphasized the extreme seriousness of entering into suretyship. The obligations of a surety and the principles governing the forfeiture of a bail bond have been extensively discussed in a number of cases, in particular, the often cited Loh Kim Chiang v PP [1992]2 SLR 233. In his judgement in this case, the late Karthigesu JA referred to a passage from R v Knightsbridge Crown Court, ex p Newton where Donaldson LJ stated that the starting point in a case where the accused failed to surrender to his bail is that the bail bond will be forfeited in full:

“It has been said by this court, and by other courts time and again,...