Public Prosecutor v Azman bin Abdullah

• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 14 May 1998
• Neutral Citation: [1998] SGHC 161
• Citation: [1998] SGHC 161
• Defendant Counsel: Edmond Pereira (Edmond Pereira & Partners)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Kow Keng Siong (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Date: 14 May 1998
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 170 of 1997
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,ss 122(6) & 123(1) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Ed) s 28,Whether accused knows information to be false,Whether adverse inference to be drawn from silence,Statements,Principles applicable to appeal against findings of fact,Appeal,Acquittal,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Statutory offences,Failure to disclose defence in s 122(6) statement,Giving of false statement to CPIB

Judgment:

YONG PUNG HOW CJ

This was an appeal by the public prosecutor against the acquittal of the respondent on two charges of knowingly giving false information under s 28(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Ed). After hearing arguments on both sides, I dismissed the appeal for the reasons I now give.

2. The facts

The undisputed facts were as follows. The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) had received a written complaint about one Paul Chua who was the President of the Singapore Body Builders Federation (SBBF). Pursuant to this, the respondent and one Jojo Sinclair, both bodybuilders, were called up to give information relating to the alleged commission of corruption offences by Paul Chua. On 12 April 1996, both of them went down to the CPIB and the respondent gave a statement to the senior special investigator of the CPIB. This statement (P4) later became the subject matter of the two charges. After the respondent went home, he realised that he had made a mistake in P4 and contacted Jojo Sinclair. Jojo Sinclair then informed the CPIB on 15 April 1996 that both she and the respondent had made mistakes in their statements. The respondent was called up nearly two weeks later and an interview on 30 April 1996 was arranged. When the respondent returned to the CPIB on 30 April 1996, he was interviewed from 10:30am to 12:20pm and for another hour in the afternoon before statement `C` was recorded at 3:05pm. On 14 January 1997, the respondent was charged with two counts of knowingly giving false information relating to the commission of corruption offences and a statement was recorded from the respondent under s 122(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68). In answer to the charge of giving false information, the respondent stated `I have nothing to say`.

3.Certain information in paras 9 and 10 of P4 was highlighted as false in the two charges:

9 Sometime in June 1993, I won the Pro-M Classics held in Malacca which came with a monetary award of US$5,000. The money was forwarded to the SBBF by the organising committee. When I returned to Singapore, Paul Chua gave me cash of US$4,000 and I accepted it. Paul Chua told me that he had deducted US$1,000 from the monetary awards as he had helped me to win by entertaining the judges in the competition. He did not tell me how he went about entertaining the judges to help me win the title . I did not ask him to return me the US$1,000 as I did not want to offend him

10 About two months later after the Pro-M Classics in 1993, I was supposed to participate in the World Game Championship held at Holland. I was to take part in the middle weight category. The other two competitors who took part in this competition from Singapore was Jojo Sinclair (sic) and Mohd Ismail. Before we departed for Holland, I happened (sic) to see Paul Chua at the federation office together with Jojo Sinclair (sic) to discuss about the programmes and details of the coming World (sic) Game Championship. In the middle of the conversation, Paul Chua asked me whether I wanted to win the World Game Competition. I told him of course I wanted to win and he then told me to give him $3,000. He said that he could help me win the competition by using the $3,000 to entertain the judges in the World Game Championship and also to use part of it to throw a party (in Singapore) for the bodybuilders and their families and also the officials of the federation after the competition

4.At the trial, the admissibility of statement `C` was objected to and a voir dire was held. At the end of the voir dire, the district judge found that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that statement `C` was made voluntarily. The statement was therefore excluded. The prosecution therefore relied on the evidence of Paul Chua that the allegations were false and that he could not have bribed the judges as they were all men of reputation and integrity. The prosecution also invited the court to draw an adverse inference from the respondent`s failure to mention his defence in his s 122(6) statement.

5.At the close of the prosecution`s case, the respondent was called upon to enter his defence. The respondent`s defence was that the statements were made honestly; he believed the facts to be true when he made them. He only realised that there were some mistakes when he went home and recollected his thoughts. He readily admitted that, in relation to para 9, the Pro-M Classics 1993 was held on 30 August and not in June; the prize was US$4,500 and not US$5,000 and the prize money was given to him in Malacca and not forwarded by the organising committee to the SBBF. He maintained, however, that Paul Chua had obtained US$1,000 out of his prize money to defray the expenses in entertaining the judges.

6.As regards para 10, the respondent asserted that Paul Chua did not ask him for $3,000 so that he could help him win the World Games Championship in Holland. The alleged purpose of the $3,000 was to throw a party for the bodybuilders, their families and the SBBF officials in Singapore after the World Games competition. The respondent explained that he acceded to Paul Chua`s requests for money because he was afraid that he might be placed under a ban again. He was also afraid that he might be `marked` and not be selected for overseas competitions.

7.At the end of the trial, the district judge was not satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the respondent had given the information highlighted, knowing it to be false. The information might not be true and the respondent might even be careless or reckless about the information he had given but the district judge was of the view that this fell short of the requisite mental element: knowledge that the information he gave was false. In the circumstances, the respondent was acquitted of both charges.

8. The appeal

The prosecution submitted that the district judge`s findings of fact and the inferences he drew, which formed the basis of the acquittals, were reached against the weight of the evidence. In addition, it was contended that the district judge erred in failing to draw an adverse inference from the respondent`s silence in his s 122(6) statement.

9.First of all, it was submitted that the district judge erred in failing to give sufficient weight to the respondent`s history of defiance when he accepted the respondent`s evidence that he gave the money out of fear. It was undisputed that the respondent had earlier defied Paul Chua and the then Singapore Amateur Body Building Federation (SABBF) for the period of 1980 to 1988 and had, in 1994, expressed his dissatisfaction in the press with the Sportsman of the Year award and the Coca Cola/ Sunday Times Sports Star award. Even in 1993, when the two sums of money referred to in the charges were allegedly given, the respondent was often late for training sessions despite Paul Chua`s unhappiness about it.

10.The prosecution also argued that there was no valid reason for the respondent to fear Paul Chua. There was no evidence to suggest that Paul Chua himself had the ability to impose a ban on the respondent. Neither was there evidence to show that a bodybuilder had been `marked` for being critical of Paul Chua. There was a selection committee on which distinguished members sat and a selection process. It was therefore unlikely that Paul Chua alone could make decisions as to the selection of bodybuilders for overseas competitions. The prosecution argued that the fear of being banned did not operate on the respondent`s mind as he could not even remember being placed on life-ban when he was initially questioned on it. For this reason, the prosecution contended that the respondent could not have been so fearful of Paul Chua that he would meekly comply with the requests for money in 1993 without any protests or attempts to seek clarification on the details of the payments.

1...