Public Prosecutor v Jayasaravanan s/o Jayapragasam

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yap Siew Yong
• Judgment Date: 05 September 2003
• Neutral Citation: [2003] SGDC 207
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2003
• Published date: 06 October 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mohammed Nasser Ismail (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Defendant Counsel: Syed Ahmad (M/s Billy & Alsree)
• Citation: [2003] SGDC 207

1 The accused, Jayasaravanan s/o Jayapragasam, pleaded guilty to one charge under s 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241) and one charge under s 225A(a) of the Penal Code (Cap 224). The first charge relates to the acceptance of a gratification as an inducement to omit to apprehend an immigration offender. The second charge relates to the accused intentionally omitting to arrest four immigration offenders though he was legally bound to do so.

2 The accused also consented to having a further charge under s 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing.

3 The accused, being dissatisfied with the sentence imposed, is now appealing against my decision.

The facts

4 The accused is a Police Corporal attached to Geylang Police NPC (Neighbourhood Police Centre). On 14 September 2002, Geylang Police Division set up a task force to tackle serious crimes such as robbery, snatch theft, housebreaking and vehicle theft. The accused was part of this task force.

5 On 29 October 2002, the accused, together with other members of his task force proceeded to a coffeeshop at Block 350 Ubi Avenue 1 as they had received information that five robbery suspects had been spotted there.

6 At the coffeeshop, the accused and the other officers at the scene managed to apprehend five Bangladeshis, Mohd Alam, Ratun, Zuyel, Khalil and Mohd Ataur. After conducting a search, the accused realised that the Bangladeshis were immigration offenders as they did not have any valid documents on them. The prosecution subsequently clarified that the fifth Bangladeshi, Mohd Ataur, was not an immigration offender.

7 The accused then called his contact Jamal to come down to the coffeeshop. Jamal arrived and spoke with the Bangladeshis. Jamal informed the Bangladeshis that if they gave him money, they would be released. Mohd Alam told Jamal that he had money. The accused released Mohd Alam from his handcuffs and Jamal brought him aside to ask for $2,000. Mohd Alam replied that he only had $700 and he gave the whole amount to Jamal. Jamal returned $15 to Mohd Alam and gave $685 to the accused.

8 The accused then released Mohd Alam. Thereafter, the accused also released the remaining three immigration offenders, Ratun, Zuyel and Khalil.

The mitigation plea

9 Counsel for the accused tendered a written mitigation highlighting the accused’s good record in the police force and his lack of antecedents.

10 In his written mitigation, Counsel also claimed that the accused did not act alone and that Corporal Zulkifly was part of the ‘conspiracy’ as well and received $300 from the accused. The statement of facts tendered by the prosecution does not mention Corporal Zulkifly's involvement though he is mentioned in the charge which was taken into consideration.

11 I placed little weight on this aspect of Counsel's mitigation. If another police officer was involved, that would make the offences even more difficult to detect and this could be considered an aggravating factor.

Prosecution’s submissions

12 The prosecution asked the court to impose a deterrent sentence. The prosecution submitted that the accused was the most experienced police officer in the group at the scene and should have upheld the values of the Police Force.

The sentencing factors considered

13 I gave due weight to the accused’s plea of guilt, his lack of antecedents, and the fact that the accused hitherto had a generally good record in the Police Force. However, where there are overriding public policy considerations, these factors do not automatically dictate that the accused is entitled to a substantial discount in sentence.

14 In sentencing the accused, I took into consideration several aggravating factors that were present in this case. The present offences were committed by the accused in his capacity as a police officer. Such offences are treated more seriously as police officers are entrusted with the responsibility to investigate crime and the administration of...