Public Prosecutor v Chew Suang Heng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 26 January 2001
• Date: 26 January 2001
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 276 of 2000
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Public Prosecutor

Plaintiff

and

Chew Suang Heng

Defendant

[2001] SGHC 15

Yong Pung How CJ

Magistrate's Appeal No 276 of 2000

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Sentencing–Corruption offences involving law enforcement officers–Need for deterrent custodial sentence–Plea of guilt, lack of premeditation and fear of being charged–Mitigating factors–Section 6 (b) Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed)

The respondent (Chew) was arrested on suspicion for the offence of loitering for the purpose of betting . While Chew was being brought to the police station in the police car, he told the police officers that he would give them $1,000 if they let him go. Chew was told to keep quiet and when he insisted, he was warned that it was an offence to bribe police officers. At the police station, Chew took out a $1,000 note and again attempted to bribe one of the police officers. The police officer refused the bribe and arrested Chew for trying to bribe him. The $1,000 note was seized and Chew was charged with an offence under s 6 (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) (“PCA”). Chew pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to a fine and in default six months' imprisonment. The Prosecution appealed on the ground that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and asked for a deterrent custodial sentence to be imposed.

Held, allowing the appeal:

(1) Generally, corruption offences involving law enforcement officers or other public servants attracted harsher penalties and custodial sentences as compared to similar offences committed in commercial dealings and in the private sector. In view of the public interest in stamping out bribery and corruption in the country, especially in the public service, a deterrent sentence for such offences was justified: at [9] to [11].

(2) Chew's plea of guilt was not a mitigating factor since he must have known that the Prosecution would have had no problem in securing a conviction: at [13].

(3) Chew's lack of premeditation and fear of being charged were also not mitigating factors in view of his stubborn persistence in trying to bribe the police officer even after he had been warned several times. There was also no reason for crediting Chew for the police officer's refusal to accept the bribe: at [16] to [19].

(4) As there were no exceptional circumstances in this case and a deterrent custodial sentence was clearly warranted, the appeal was allowed and Chew was sentenced to two months' imprisonment in addition to the fine imposed earlier: at [20].

Fu Foo Tong v PP [1995] 1 SLR (R) 1; [1995] 1 SLR 448 (refd)

Meeran bin Mydin v PP [1998] 1 SLR (R) 522; [1998] 2 SLR 522 (refd)

Roslan bin Abdul Rahman v PP [1999] 1 SLR (R) 377; [1999] 2 SLR 211 (folld)

Wong Kai Chuen Philip v PP [1990] 2 SLR (R) 361; [1990] SLR 1011 (folld)

Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 394, 397

Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 6 (b) (consd)

Tan Boon Gin (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the appellant

MN Swami (MN Swami & Yap) for the respondent.

Yong Pung How CJ

1 The respondent, Chew Suang Heng (“Chew”) was charged in the District Court as follows:

DAC 42083/2000 (P1)

You, Chew Suang Heng, M/58 yrs are charged that you on or about 26 August 2000, at Geylang Police Station, Singapore, did corruptly offer a gratification of a sum of $1000 (one thousand dollars) to one Jayasaravanan s/o Jayapragasam, a police constable in the employ of Singapore Police Force and attached to Geylang Police Station, as an inducement to do an act in relation to his principal's affairs, to wit, to...