Public Prosecutor v Hock Lian Seng Infrastructure Private Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Disa Sim
• Judgment Date: 17 July 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] SGMC 16
• Published date: 06 September 2007
• Court: Magistrates' Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Edmond Pereira and Looi Teck Kheong (Edmond Pereira & Partners)
• Defendant Counsel: Foo Maw Shen and Daryl Ong (Yeo Wee Kiong Law Corporation)

17 July 2007

District Judge Disa Sim:

The Appeal

1 The Accused company through its representative claimed trial to one charge under s 80(4)(a) of the Electricity Act (Cap 89A) (“the Act”) for the offence of failing to comply with the reasonable requirements of the electricity licensee, namely, SP PowerGrid Ltd, for the prevention of damage to the high voltage electricity cable, which offence is punishable under s 80(7) of the same Act. The charge (Exhibit P1B) is set out below:

You, M/s Hock Lian Seng Infrastructure Private Limited, RCB Registration No. 196900255G, are charged that you on or about the 7^th day of July 2004, carried out earthworks at the Kim Chuan MRT Depot Singapore at the location of Kingpost 4 (S4) which was within the vicinity of a 66 Kilovolt high voltage electricity cable, which is under the management of SP PowerGrid Ltd, a public electricity licensee, without complying with the reasonable requirements of PowerGrid Ltd (as SP PowerGrid Ltd was known then) for the prevention of damage to the high voltage electricity cable, set out in their letter to you dated 31 July 2002, to wit, by:-

(a) failing to contact and consult PowerGrid Ltd when your earthworks were within 2 meters of any electricity cables at Kingpost 4 (S4);

(b) failing to provide a competent full-time site supervisor to monitor the site operations during the entire earthworks at Kingpost 4 (S4); and

(c) failing to keep the Earthworks Monitoring and Cable Protection (EMCP) officers informed of any change of site management, in that the site manager, Mr. Lai Chan Po and the site supervisor, Mr. Wong Yong Jie, both of whom were stated in the Notice of Commencement of Earthworks dated 29 July 2002 were changed and replaced by Mr. Kee Choon Hong and Mr. Maruthamuthu Mathiazahagan respectively.

At the end of the trial, I acquitted the Accused of the charge. The Prosecution has appealed against the acquittal. I now give the reasons for my decision.

The Undisputed Facts

2 The following facts were undisputed. The Accused, Hock Lian Seng Infrastructure Pte Limited, was the main contractor for the construction of the Kim Chuan MRT Depot. It sub-contracted the construction of the temporary earth retaining structure to Jian Man Construction Pte Ltd (“Jian Man”), who in turn sub-contracted the shoulder pile boring works to Chun Ye Piling (“Chun Ye”). The Accused submitted a notice for commencement of earthworks (“NCE”) on 29 July 2002 to PowerGrid Ltd (as SP PowerGrid Ltd was then known) (hereinafter referred to interchangeably as “PowerGrid”), the public electricity licensee. [note: 1] The NCE reflected the site manager to be one Lai Chan Po, and the site supervisor to be one Wong Yong Jie (Exhibit P5B).

3 The electricity licensee responded with a letter of recommendations and advice dated 31 July 2002 (Exhibit P5C) that set out the requirements that the Accused had to comply with when carrying out the earthworks. Among these were:

(a) provide a competent full-time site supervisor to monitor the site operations during the entire earthworks;

(a) contact and consult PowerGrid when the earthworks were within 2m of any electricity cables; and

(c) keep Earthworks Monitoring and Cable Protection (EMCP) officers informed of any change in site management.

It was undisputed that all three were reasonable requirements for the prevention of damage to the high voltage electricity cable.

4 On the morning of 7 July 2004, Jian Man started boring works at six kingpost positions at the worksite numbered from S1 to S6 (reflected diagrammatically on exhibit DB39). Trial holes dug confirmed that it was safe to proceed with boring at all the kingposts with the exception of S4, where trial pit excavation uncovered a pre-cast slab. This indicated the presence of power cables. Jian Man’s supervisor was one Thiagarajan Raja (“Raja”).

5 On the afternoon of 7 July 2004, the rig operator from Chun Ye, one Ho Kong Way, proceeded to carry out boring works at the S4 location. It was this work that damaged the high voltage electricity cable at the S4 location. It was undisputed that the boring works constituted “earthworks” within the meaning of s 2 of the Act. [note: 2] On the day in question, the Accused’s site manager was one Kee Choon Hong and its site supervisor was one Maruthamuthu Mathiazahagan (“Muthu”).

6 In a parallel prosecution arising from the same incident, Jian Man was prosecuted under s 80(7) of the Act for carrying out earthworks in the vicinity of a high voltage electricity cable without giving the electricity licensee not less than seven days notice in writing as was required by s 80(1) of the Act. Jian Man pleaded guilty to the charge.

7 Before I proceed any further, it is necessary to make a note on an administrative matter. At trial, the Defence tendered a bundle of documents, which was collectively marked as “DB”. The Defence however did not refer to all the documents in the bundle during the hearing. It was therefore agreed that only such documents as were referred to would be admitted and marked into evidence, and that such exhibits would bear the notation “DB”, followed by the page number in which the document was found. [note: 3]

The Prosecution’s Case

8 The Prosecution called a total of six witnesses to the stand. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses are set out as below.

Evidence of PW1 – Teo Jieh Ping (“Teo”)

9 PW1 Teo Jieh Ping (“Teo”) gave his evidence-in-chief by way of conditioned statement (P2). Teo was the Senior Technical Officer with the Land Transport Authority for the project at Kim Chuan MRT Depot. On the morning of 7 July 2004, trial hole work at the S4 location uncovered the presence of 66 kV cables. Teo inspected the exposed cables in the presence of the Accused’s site engineer (Goh Yong Kiat), the Accused’s site supervisor (Muthu), and Jian Man’s safety supervisor cum co-ordinator (Raja). Teo informed all three men not to proceed with any boring work at the S4 location. He told Goh to contact his site manager, Kee Choon Hong, to liaise with their design office to relocate the kingpost position. Teo said that the normal procedure was not to extend the trial hole once cables were exposed. The trial hole would be backfilled if it could not be relocated within the day itself. He was not aware of any instruction being given to Chun Ye’s rig operator to proceed with boring work at the S4 location.

Evidence of PW2 – Tan Ah Yiam, Shafiq (“Shafiq”)

10 PW2 Tan Ah Yiam, Shafiq (“Shafiq”) gave his evidence-in-chief by way of conditioned statement (P4A). Shafiq was the Investigation Officer of SP PowerGrid Ltd. His conditioned statement essentially set out the circumstances leading to the prosecution as I have described above in paragraphs two to five.

Evidence of PW3 – Dixon s/o David (“Dixon”)

11 PW3 Dixon s/o David (“Dixon”) gave his evidence-in-chief partly by way of a conditioned statement (P5). Dixon was the Technical Officer of SP PowerGrid Ltd. He was also the officer in charge of the NCE for the Circle Line Project (Construction and Completion of Kim Chuan Depot) at Kim Chuan Road. Dixon set out the circumstances surrounding the submission of the NCE and the issuance of the letter of recommendations and advice.

12 Upon the Accused’s submission of the NCE, Dixon liaised with its then site manager, Lai Chan Po (“Lai”), at a NCE site visit. Dixon informed Lai of the cable routes and good work practice to prevent cable damage during earthworks. The NCE indicated the Accused’s site supervisor to be one Wong Yong Jie. After the site visit, the electricity licensee sent out a letter of recommendations and advice dated 31 July 2002 containing the three requirements in question. Dixon explained the necessity for the three requirements in his conditioned statement in the following terms:

3. In the Letter of Recommendation, three of the requirements included were:-

(a) Contact and consult SP PowerGrid Ltd when earthworks were within 2 meter [sic] of any electricity cable.

(b) Provide a competent full time site supervisor to monitor the site operations during the entire earthworks.

(c) Keep EMCP Officers informed of any change of site management/LCDW/PREO/REO, and also inform if there is any shift/offset of proposed earthworks position.

4. The reason for requiring 3(a) above are [sic] inter-alia, as follows:-

(i) During the site visit, Lai Chan Po informed me that their earthworks involved excavation and piling works all over the worksite where some locations have cables while some don’t; and

(ii) As this was a long term project, I made known and indicated in the NCE to Lai Chan Po to inform me when they were working near to the high voltage cables so that I could give advice to prevent any cable damage.

5. The reasons for requiring 3(b) are inter-alia as follows:-

(i) As I have given my advice to Lai Chan Po on cable damage prevention and shown him the cable routes at the worksite, he was aware of our requirements and knew who to contact when they are in doubt on how to protect cables and prevent cable damage;

(ii) As Wong Yong Jie was the authorized site supervisor chosen by HLS [i.e. the Accused], he must be a competent site supervisor for the work scope indicated in the NCE; and

(iii) A competent full time site supervisor is one who knows how to follow the correct worksite procedures, close monitoring of earthworks during commencement and brief workers on the cable routes.

6. The reason for requiring 3(c) are inter-alia, as follows:-

(i) In my past experience, I encountered contractors claiming that they were unaware of the Electricity Act, Letter of Requirement and the cable routes as they just took over the project from previous site management;

(ii) As this is a long term project, I was concerned that there could be frequent change of site management and workers; and

(iii) To prevent cable damage, I included this clause into the NCE requirements so that should there be any change in the site management,...