Public Prosecutor v Eyu Siew Hwa

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tey Tsun Hang
• Judgment Date: 24 February 2003
• Neutral Citation: [2003] SGDC 41
• Citation: [2003] SGDC 41
• Published date: 04 October 2003
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Eyu Siew Hwa (Appellant/ Surety in Person)

Background Information - The Accused

The accused is the surety’s sister. The accused was arrested at Woodlands Checkpoint on 14 August 2002. The trial for the accused was fixed to commence on 17 January 2003. She did not turn up at Court 16 that day.

2 She faced a total of 15 charges – three for importing drugs into Singapore; one for consumption of class ‘A’ drug; five for using forged Singapore driving licences, forged Singapore road tax discs, forged HDB season parking disc, forged Singapore NRIC card and forged Singapore passport; three for failure to go for urine tests; and the others are for driving without a valid driving licence, insurance policy and driving away a car without the permission of the owner.

Warrant of Arrest and the Bail

3 She has been out on bail of $100,000 posted by the surety, since 19 Sep 2002. On 17 January 2003, the court issued a warrant of arrest against her. The court also ordered that the surety has to show cause on his bond.

4 The record also shows that the accused has also jumped bail once before, in 1998.

Background Information - Show Cause Proceedings

5 On 17 January 2002, the court was informed by the learned defence counsel for the accused that the accused had been staying with the surety. However, she disappeared on 4 January 2003. The learned defence counsel last saw her on 3 January 2003, at the office of his law firm. The learned defence counsel for the accused also told the court on 17 January 2003 that the surety then made a missing-persons report with the police. The learned defence counsel also told the court that the surety had used his savings and he had also borrowed from his friends to raise the bail amount. On 14 February 2003, the surety himself added that he was disappointed that the accused had betrayed his trust.

The Law

6 A surety bears significant legal responsibilities. Going bail for an accused is a serious matter. It cannot be lightly undertaken. That is the reason why before every surety swears on the bail form, he or she is brought before a magistrate, and the surety’s heavy responsibilities are explained clearly to him or her by a magistrate.

7 Every surety is made to understand, if the accused jumps bail, it is only in the most exceptional cases that the court will be prepared to modify the prima facie position, that is, the entire sum will be forfeited.

8 In R v Knightsbridge Crown Court, ex parte Newton [1980] Crim LR 715, Donaldson LJ stated clearly that:

It has been said by this court, and by other courts time and again, that entering into suretyship (going bail for someone, to use the common phrase) is an extremely serious matter not to be lightly undertaken, and those who go bail must understand that, if the accused fails to surrender to his bail, it is only in the most exceptional cases that the court will be prepared to modify the prima facie position, which is that the amount for which the person concerned has stood surety will be forfeit in full… (emphasis added)

9 In R v Waltham Forest Justices, ex parte Parfrey [1980] Crim LR 571, Donaldson LJ also made it clear that the risks that a bailor ran were real risks and not a theoretical possibility. It was not uncommon that the accused failed to surrender to his or her bail when required to do so.

10 That the obligation which comes with standing bail for an accused has serious legal consequences was also emphasised by The Honourable the Chief Justice in a very recent case Public Prosecutor v Ram Ghanshamdas Mahtani and other [Show Cause No 1 & 2 of 2002].

The Surety

11 Here, the surety only tried to look for the accused after she had disappeared on 4 January 2003. Basically the surety believed that the accused would not jump bail, and that she would not abandon her own brother to face the consequences of show cause proceedings. In short, he had trusted her absolutely that she would attend the trial.

12 Under the law, merely relying on faith alone that she would return, without doing anything more, was not sufficient to discharge his onerous duties as a surety of ensuring that the accused would attend the trial. This was emphasised by The Honourable the Chief Justice in Public Prosecutor v Ram Ghanshamdas Mahtani and other [Show Cause No 1 & 2 of 2002] at ¶ 6:

…merely relying on faith alone that the appellant would return, without doing anything more, was not sufficient to discharge their onerous duty as bailors, of ensuring that the appellant would be in attendance in court. [emphasis added]

13 The surety also said that he had made a police report. However, it has been emphasised by The Honourable the Chief Justice that the mere making of a police report would not be sufficient to excuse the surety. The Honourable the Chief Justice emphasised that this argument cannot be accepted. This does not constitute sufficient cause as to why the entire sum of the bail should not be forfeited. The Honourable the Chief Justice emphasised at ¶ 7:

Otherwise, the bailor would be able to escape from the...