Public Prosecutor v Kan Chee Kin

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: P Siva Shanmugam
• Judgment Date: 28 February 2006
• Neutral Citation: [2006] SGDC 30
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 17 March 2006
• Year: 2006
• Plaintiff Counsel: Insp Teo Keng Beng (Prosecuting Officer)
• Defendant Counsel: B Rengaraju (B Rengarajoo & Associates)
• Citation: [2006] SGDC 30

28 February 2006

District Judge Siva Shanmugam:

The charges and appeal

1. This Grounds of Decision arises from an appeal against acquittal.

2. The Accused, Kan Chee Kin, was tried on two amended charges :

DAC 24646 of 2005

“You,

Kan Chee Kin, Male/27 years

NRIC No. S-7806170G

are charged that you on the 15^th day of June 2005 at about 5.10pm, at the taxi stand located along Queensway, Singapore, did attempt to cheat one Chau Choon Seng, to wit, by falsely alleged that he had borrowed cash amounting to $13000/- from your ‘boss’, which fact you knew to be false and by such manner of deception, you dishonestly induced the said Chau Choon Seng to believe that he had to return the said money to you, which he would not have done so, had he not been so deceived and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 511 the Penal Code, Chapter 224.”

DAC 24647 of 2005

“You,

Kan Chee Kin, Male/27 years

NRIC No. S-7806170G

are charged that you on the 3^rd day of June 2005 at about 9.00pm, at the void deck of Blk 49 Hoy Fatt Road, Singapore, did cheat one Chau Choon Seng, to wit, by falsely alleged that he had borrowed cash amounting to $1500/- from your ‘boss’, which fact you knew to be false and by such manner of deception, you dishonestly induced the said Chau Choon Seng to handover the said money to you, which he would not have done so, had he not been so deceived and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420 the Penal Code, Chapter 224.”

3. At the close of the prosecution’s case, the Court acquitted the Accused on the two charges.

Prosecution’s Case

Evidence of PW1 Chau Choon Seng

4. Chau told the Court he knew the Accused Kan from his school days. On 3 June 2005, Kan had called him over the phone. Kan told Chau that the latter owed Kan’s boss a sum of $1,500. Chau then informed Kan that he did not borrow any money from Kan’s boss. Chau was afraid that Kan would get someone to harass his family. Chau then told his father that Kan had asked him to return $1,500 to his boss. Chau’s father subsequently handed $1,500 to Chau. Chau then handed over the same sum to Kan at 9 pm on the same day.

5. On 13 June 2005, Kan and Chau had attended a job interview together. Whilst they were on a bus journey after the interview, Kan again asked Chau for money. Kan told Chau that Chau owed his boss money and the boss wanted to look for Chau. After they alighted from the bus in the vicinity of Boon Lay Shopping Centre, Kan pushed, punched and kicked Chau. Kan told Chau to see his boss as Chau owed the boss money. Chau informed his parents of the incident. Chau’s father, PW3 Chau Yow Yee then told Chau to make a Police Report the following day. Chau accordingly filed a report on 14 June 2005 – P9. In P9 Chau had stated that Kan told him that he owed $13,000 to Kan’s boss. The Police then instructed Chau to arrange a meeting with Kan. Kan was subsequently arrested at this meeting.

6. Chau told the Court that he had not at anytime borrowed money from Kan or any illegal moneylender.

7. Under cross-examination Chau told the Court that Kan was his former neighbour. It also transpired that Chau and Kan met frequently and indulged in outings at karaoke, pubs and cinemas. Chau conceded that it was Kan who advanced monies for expenses incurred in such outings. Chau also conceded that he attended to the horse races regularly on Saturdays and Sundays to gamble. He claimed that the monies used for gambling came from his savings and not from illegal moneylenders.

8. Chau also admitted that on one occasion Kan had paid the bill for the shopping expenses incurred by Chau’s girlfriend. The purchases on this occasion amounted to a sum of $2,000. Chau maintained that he had not borrowed money from anyone. He had paid $1,500 to Kan on 3 June 2005, as he was afraid that Kan might harass his family if he failed to pay the said amount.

Evidence of PW2 Lee Chun Hoong

9. Lee was a friend and former school-mate of Chau. On 13 June 2005, Lee had contacted Chau to inform him of a job interview at Tuas Recycling Company. Lee added that on the same day he had seen the Accused Kan push Chau and punch him. Whilst all of them were on a bus he had heard Kan telling Chau to give him $13,000. He added that Kan had stated that the $13,000 were monies Chau had borrowed from loansharks.

Evidence of PW3 Chau Yow Yee

10. Chau Yow Yee is the victim Chau’s father. He told the Court that on 3 June 2005, his son had informed him that the Accused Kan demanded $1,500 from him. Chau Yow Yee then cashed in his fixed deposit the same day and handed a sum of $1,500 to Chau. Chau handed the sum over to Kan the same day.

11. On 13 June 2005, when he returned from work, Chau told him that Kan was demanding $13,000 from him, alleging that Chau had borrowed the same sum from his ‘elder brother’. Chau Yow Yee then advised his son to make a police report.

Evidence of PW4 SSGT Tan Koon Liang

12. SSgt Tan Koon Liang was part of the police operation which led to the eventual arrest of the Accused. SSgt Tan had told the Accused over the phone that he will pay the $13,000 owed by Chau and arrangements were made for Chau to meet Kan. On 15 June 2005, sometime in the afternoon, the Accused was arrested at a taxi stand outside Queensway Shopping Centre.

Trial-within-Trial for Statements A, B & C

13. The Prosecution sought to admit a long statement and two cautioned statements recorded from the Accused by the investigating officer Sgt Mazniyante on 16 June 2005. The defence challenged the admissibility of the statements on the grounds that the Accused did not make these statements voluntarily.

Evidence of PW5 SGT Mazniyante A.R

14. Sgt Maz is the investigating Officer of this case. On 15 June 2006, Sgt Maz was part of the group of officers who arrested the Accused. The arrest took place at about 3.10 pm. Thereafter the Accused, Sgt Maz and another colleague SI Sahlan brought the Accused back to the police station and interviewed him further. Sgt Maz, SI Sahlan, Sgt Yeo Kiat Liang and the Accused were present. They questioned the Accused. The interview was conducted in simple English and Mandarin. Subsequently they left the station at about 7.00 pm and conducted a raid in the Accused’s house. Nothing incriminating was found and they returned to the Division. As it was already after 10 pm, the Accused was not brought out for further questioning.

15. On 16/6/05 at about 3.30 Sgt Maz asked SIO Ng Thiam Chye to assist in the recording of the Accused’s statement. SIO Ng was to be the interpreter.

16. The Accused was brought out to the interview room within the lockup area at about 3.40 pm.

17. Sgt Maz told the Accused that she would be recording his statement and that her colleague SIO Ng will serve as an interpreter. The Accused indicated that he wished to speak in Mandarin.

18. Sgt Maz told the Accused that she would be serving him the charges and recording statements with regards to the offence he was facing. Sgt Maz told the Court that the Accused did not have any complaints prior to the recording. The Accused seemed normal. Sgt Maz commenced recording statement “A” at 3.43 pm. The statement was concluded at 6.40 pm. Sgt Maz added that there were no threats, inducement or promise made to the Accused during the recording of statement. After the statement was recorded SIO Ng Thiam Chye read over the statement to the Accused. Accused made 3 amendments and he then signed the statement on each page. The amendments were handwritten. After the recording the Accused was returned to the lockup.

19. At about 9.40 pm Sgt Maz recorded the cautioned statement of the Accused with the assistance of Sgt Francis Khoo, who served as an interpreter. A total of 8 statements were recorded at this time, 2 of which are the subject matter of this trial-within-a-trial.

20. Sgt Maz informed the Accused that she would be serving him the charges and recording the statements with regards to the offences he was facing.

21. With respect to the first cautioned statement, the charge of attempted extortion of $13,000/- was read to him. The warning was also read to him. Sgt Maz told the Accused that she would be recording whatever he wanted to say. After making the statement the Accused signed on every page. The statement was read back to him. Sgt Maz signed on the statement as well. Sgt Maz testified that there was no threat, inducement or promise adduced to the Accused at anytime. The recording of the first cautioned statement “B” concluded at 9.58 pm.

22. At 10.00 pm, Sgt Maz continued to record a second S.122(6) statement “C” from the Accused. She read out the charge and warning which were interpreted to Accused. The Accused made a statement. He was invited to make amendments but he declined. Statement was also read over to him. Sgt Maz added that there was no threat, inducement or promise adduced to him at anytime. Prior to the recording of this statement the Accused did not make any complaints to Sgt Maz.

Evidence of PW6 SIO Ng Thiam Chye

23. SIO Ng Thiam Chye told the Court that on 16 June 2005, he served as an interpreter to Sgt Maz whilst she recorded statement A from the Accused. The Accused had elected to speak in Mandarin. He had no complaints prior to the recording of the statement. The Accused had proceeded to make amendments to the statement before signing it.

Evidence of PW7 SGT Francis Khoo

24. Sgt Francis Khoo told the Court that on 16 June 2005, he served as an interpreter to Sgt Maz when she recorded statements B and C from the Accused. The Accused had elected to speak in Mandarin. He had no complaints prior to the recording of the statements. Sgt Khoo affirmed that the statements were made voluntarily by the Accused and that there was no threat, inducement or promise adduced. He added that only he and Sgt Maz were present during the recording of the statements. Sgt Khoo also stated that because the Accused was mentally challenged he...