Public Prosecutor v Harvey Chong

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Wong Choon Ning
• Judgment Date: 31 January 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] SGDC 29
• Published date: 23 February 2007
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Inspector Thulesiram
• Defendant Counsel: Peter Fernando (Leo Fernando)

31 January 2007 Judgment reserved.

District Judge Wong Choon Ning:

1 The accused claimed trial to the following amended charge :-

DAC 11205/2006 (Exh. P1A)

“You,

HARVEY CHONG, MALE 47 YEARS OLD

Nric No: S1334867-G

NATIONALITY: SINGAPOREAN

are charged that you, on the 21^th day of March, 2006, at or about 11.20 pm, in the vicinity of Sembawang MRT Station, Sembawang Alley, Singapore, were found armed with the following instruments, to wit, a pair of cutter, a hammer, two screwdriver and a pair of gloves, for use in connection with any housebreaking, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 22(1)(c) of the Miscellaneous Offences Act, Chapter 184.”

2 At the close of the prosecution’s case, the defence was called. At the conclusion of the trial, I found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and accordingly I acquitted the accused of the charge.

3 The prosecution is dissatisfied with the order of acquittal and now appeals against it.

Prosecution's Case

4 A total of three witnesses were called to give evidence by the prosecution. These were the police officer who first found the accused at the MRT Station with the instruments, the police officer who escorted the accused back to the police station, and the Investigating Officer of the case.

Observations of the accused at the scene

5 Senior Station Inspector Oh Soo Khoon (PW 1) gave evidence that, sometime past 11.00 pm, on 21 Mar 06, he was at the Sembawang MRT Station to conduct investigations into a few cases of outraging of modesty. After he had finished making his enquiries, PW 1 waited at the MRT Station to meet up with his team. PW 1 was also the team leader of the Roving Team, which had been set up for anti-housebreaking, pro-active patrol and anti-crime rounds.

6 Whilst waiting at the station, PW 1 saw the accused walking to and fro, on two occasions, between the self-service ticket machine and the MRT Station Inspector’s office. As the accused moved up and down between the machine and the office, he looked as if he was in trouble.[note: 1] The accused was observed to be holding a fare card in his hand.

7 Seeing this, PW 1 approached the MRT Station Inspector to inquire as to what had happened. He was informed that the accused wanted to go to Yishun and that the accused had asked for the Station Inspector’s help to encash his fare card (that is, convert it back into cash). PW 1 testified that he had also observed the accused standing at the self-service ticket machine and trying to no avail to encash his fare card.[note: 2]

8 PW 1 then saw the accused begin to walk away from the ticket machine, towards the main entrance of the MRT Station. The accused was, however, walking in an unsteady manner.[note: 3] When he stopped or paused in his steps, his body would actually swing.[note: 4] The accused was walking towards the main entrance of the station when, at one point, he just stopped on his own at the main lobby of the station.[note: 5]

9 At this juncture, PW 1 decided to check on the accused. As he walked towards the accused, PW 1 observed that the accused looked as if he could not decide where he should go.[note: 6]

10 After identifying himself as a police officer, PW 1 asked the accused where he was going. The accused replied that he was returning to Yishun. PW 1 then requested for his particulars. The accused informed PW 1that he had lost his identity card. He was nevertheless able to orally give his name, identity card number and address. PW 1 then contacted his office to do a background screening on the accused. When PW 1 found out that the accused had a criminal record, he wanted to check the accused’s haversack (P2). The accused did not make any protest or question PW 1 as to why he wanted to check his bag. He voluntarily handed over his haversack to PW 1.

11 PW 1 opened the haversack and found a hammer, a screwdriver, a pair of cutter and a pair of gloves (P3), all within the main compartment of the haversack. PW 1 questioned the accused as to what he was doing at the Sembawang Estate and why he was carrying all these tools. The accused said that he worked as a carpenter. When PW 1 asked him for his place of employment, the accused replied that he was a free-lance carpenter.

12 When the accused said that he was at the Sembawang Estate to look for his boss, PW 1 asked him for his boss’ name and contact number. The accused was unable to provide the particulars. He said that he did not know where the boss stayed. PW 1 then asked the accused why he was looking for his boss. The accused replied that he was asking his boss to help repair his bicycle. When PW 1 asked him where his bicycle was, the accused said that it was at Yishun. PW 1 then questioned the accused as to why he needed to carry the tools to Sembawang and back to Yishun for the repair of his bicycle since it was in Yishun. PW 1 further told the accused that, if the boss were to help repair the bicycle, the tools should be carried by the boss. The accused replied that he was not able to answer PW 1’s question. Towards the end of the questioning, the accused told PW 1 that he was no longer able to answer his questions.[note: 7]

13 On the same premises of the Sembawang MRT Station, there was a NTUC Supermarket, one 7-Eleven outlet, one coffeeshop, two clinics and two shops. At the point of time when the accused was spotted and checked, there was little human traffic in the MRT Station. The 7-Eleven outlet was the only shop which was still open. Prior to his arrest, the accused had not been observed walking with his haversack towards any of the shops.

14 PW 1 testified that he considered the hammer, screwdrivers, one pair of cutter and a pair of gloves to be tools which could be used to commit housebreaking. As the accused was unable to give satisfactory answers to his questions and he was found with the tools close to midnight at the MRT Station, PW 1 decided to place him under arrest. The First Information Report (D2), which was made by a call from the scene at about 11.33 pm on 21 March 06 revealed that the accused had been placed under arrest for possession of housebreaking implement and consumption of controlled drugs. PW 1 called his Neighbourhood Police Centre for a police car to be dispatched to the scene. Whilst waiting for the police car, the accused, who was made to stand at a corner of the barricades wall at the station, did not attempt to leave or run away. Shortly later, Sergeant Lim Chiang Tat (PW 2) and his partner arrived at the MRT Station, and they escorted the accused and the exhibits back to Ang Mo Kio Police Station.

Observations of the accused at the police station

15 The Investigation Officer of the case, Sergeant Edmund Lim Kim Chuan (PW 3), testified that, when the accused was first brought into the Charge Office of Ang Mo Kio Police Station, he had spoken to the accused for a short while. This would be sometime after midnight but before 1.57 am (the time when the accused was searched at the lock-up).

16 According to PW 3, it was a casual conversation in which he tried to find out what the accused knew about the case.[note: 8] PW 3 was aware that the accused had been arrested for possession of housebreaking equipment as well as suspected consumption of controlled drugs. PW 3 hence asked the accused what he was there for. PW 3, however, could no longer remember what reply the accused gave. PW 3 did not keep any record of what the accused had said or what he had asked the accused during this short conversation.

17 PW 3 could only remember that the accused had given inconsistent answers to some of his questions. To his question as to what the accused had been doing at Sembawang, the accused, at one instance, said that he was there for shopping and, at another instance, he said that he was there to look for the boss. To another question as to the purpose of the tools and why the accused was in possession of them, the accused said that he was looking for his boss to do some work. PW 3 claimed that the accused had also given another inconsistent answer, but he could no longer remember what that answer was.

18 PW 3 testified that, as he posed his questions to the accused, the latter appeared to be in a daze.[note: 9] The accused kept looking around him as PW 3 spoke to him. Although the accused was able to speak, he was incapable of giving a proper account of what had happened.[note: 10] When the same question was posed to him, the accused would keep giving different accounts. Indeed, his inconsistent answers had all been given within a span of five minutes[note: 11]. The accused’s condition was so bad that PW 3 thought that he must be intoxicated[note: 12], even though no smell of alcohol could be detected in the accused’s breath[note: 13].

19 PW 3 remembered that, at the Charge Office, he had asked the accused whether he was on any kind of medication. The accused replied in the affirmative. The accused mentioned that he was having some medication from the Institute of Mental Health (IMH). The accused was, however, unable to state precisely what medication it was, and PW 3 did not inquire further about the medication. PW 3 instead decided to leave the accused in the lock-up first and record his cautioned statement later.

20 It was the evidence of PW 3 that the accused had told him that he was a patient with the IMH. He had also found the accused looking dazed and being unable to give a proper account of what had happened or why he had the tools with him. Nevertheless, PW 3 did not feel that there was any need to check with the accused’s family to inquire if they could give him any information on the accused’s mental history or condition or what the accused was doing at the MRT Station on that night.[note: 14] PW 3’s position was that, as the accused had not implicated any of his family members to be involved in his offence, it was not necessary to record any statement from them.

21 Urine...