Public Prosecutor v Liew Kim Choo

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 31 March 1997
• Neutral Citation: [1997] SGHC 79
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 243 of 1996
• Date: 31 March 1997
• Year: 1997
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Hay Hung Chun (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Citation: [1997] SGHC 79
• Defendant Counsel: Gurdip Singh (George Sandosham Gurdip & Partners)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Acquittal without calling defence,Whether reasonable in the circumstances to infer that Liew is the person known as Anna who communicates and takes the prostitutes' earnings,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,s 146(1) Women's Charter (Cap 353),Appeal against acquittal,Knowingly living wholly or in part on prostitutes' earnings,Acquittal,Appeal

The charges

The respondent faced three charges in the court below. In so far as relevant, the two charges pertinent to this appeal were for knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution of one Lee Swee Ling and one Lee Phui Yoke respectively, thereby committing two similar offences punishable under s 146(1) of the Women`s Charter (Cap 353).

Section 146(1) of the Women`s Charter states:

Any person who knowingly lives wholly or in part on the earnings of the prostitution of another person shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years and shall also be liable to a fine not exceeding $10,000.

65

At the end of the trial below, the respondent was acquitted of the two similar charges without having her defence called.

65

The prosecution appealed against the acquittal. At the conclusion of the hearing on 13 March 1997, I allowed the appeal. I now give my reasons.

The facts

65

On 16 April 1996, the anti-vice officers from CID carried out a sting at a hotel in Rangoon Road. Two male anti-vice officers, Cpl Lim Seng Chuan (PW5) and Cpl Lim Eng Yong (PW6), checked into one of the rooms at the hotel and the latter dialled a number 7334267 provided by his supervisor to procure the services of two prostitutes.

65

Cpl Lim Eng Yong spoke to a female, one Anna, to book two prostitutes. After making the booking, he informed DSI Lim Yew Boon (PW8) who was back at CID office. DSI Lim screened the number 7334267 through the police radio division and was able to confirm that all calls to that number had been transferred to a handphone by the number 98183928.

65

When the prostitutes arrived, they said they were sent by Anna and were to receive $200 each. There was some negotiation over the price, and one of them requested permission to call Anna to tell her that she had arrived. At this point, a woman sergeant emerged from a cupboard in the room and detained the two prostitutes.

65

The two prostitutes were questioned by S/Sgt Johnny Cheah (PW10). They said they were sent to the hotel by a male Chinese in a car, identified as one Lim How Kim (Lim) who was also PW4. The officers then asked one of them to call Lim. They complied and were instructed by Lim to meet him at a car park at Kent Road. The prostitutes proceeded there with the officers following them. When Lim subsequently arrived in a car SBC 8968R, he was detained.

65

The two prostitutes and Lim were brought to CID for investigation while the other officers proceeded to 128 Loyang Rise. Only two maids and the respondent`s daughter were at the premises. The respondent and her husband, Tan Choo Peek, were arrested later when they returned home. A search was then conducted at the premises to find, inter alia, the handphone. But, it was unsuccessful and nothing incriminating was found.

The decision below

65

At the end of the prosecution`s case, the trial judge was not satisfied that a case against the respondent had been made out with respect to the two charges.

65

In so far as relevant, he held as follows:

The court accepted counsel`s submission that the evidence of PW2 and PW3 [the two prostitutes] clearly showed that no money earned by them was taken by both accused [one of whom was the respondent]. They worked for PW4 [Lim] and they did not know [the respondent] at all and PW4 was very clear in his evidence that he took their earnings because they had worked for him. He had also pleaded guilty to this charge. The court accordingly acquitted [the respondent] on DAC 7763/96 and 7764/96.

The prosecution`s evidence showed that PW5 and PW6 made some calls. The numbers were not known and even so a female voice answered. The negotiation was made by PW5 and PW6 at the hotel for negotiated price but there was also no evidence to show who answered the phone call. The call was made to 7334267 which is the phone number of Phoenix Escort Agency and although this was owned by [the respondent], it goes no further. Although on 16 April 1996 it was relayed to No 98183928, there was no evidence as to who spoke to PW5 far more so it being [the respondent]. Being a handphone access could be obtained by any person. There was no evidence regarding the voice who answered the phone to be [the respondent].

More importantly, PW4 stated that he did not know both the accused at all. He never gave the money to the first accused from the earnings of the prostitution. [The respondent] had never asked him to send girls to the hotel and finally there was no incriminating evidence in the statements.

Issues in the appeal

65

To make out a case under s 146 of the Women`s Charter against the respondent, it was necessary to prove that she had done the following:

(a) knowingly lived;

(b) wholly or in part;

(c) on the earnings of the prostitution of another person.

65

In this respect, there were two critical questions to be answered. First, whether it could reasonably be inferred that the Anna whom Cpl Lim Eng Yong booked the prostitutes from was the respondent; this would prove element (a). Second, whether the respondent had received a cut of the prostitutes` earnings through Lim; this would prove elements (b) and (c).

65

Thus, the issue was whether there was prima facie evidence to answer these two questions in the affirmative. If there was, then the trial judge had misdirected himself when he concluded that the respondent had no case to answer.

65

Hence, the exercise in this appeal was to consider what were the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the primary facts.

The appeal

Prostitutes` evidence

65

The evidence of the two prostitutes, Ling Swee Ling (PW2) and Lee Phui Yoke (PW3), were similar as to how they operated. Whenever their services were required, Lim would contact and send them in his car to meet the customer in a hotel or apartment. Upon arriving at the meeting place, they were to make a telephone call to the number 7334267 where a female voice would answer and tell them the amount to collect for their services. After the assignment was completed, another call would be made to the same number to inform her that the work was done, and they would proceed downstairs to wait for Lim`s car.

65

The prostitutes testified that the whole sum of money paid by the customer was given to Lim solely, and they received $70 each time, irrespective of the negotiated price with the customer. This was the arrangement up to the time of their arrests. As far as the prostitutes knew, Lim kept the rest of the money. Neither of them had seen the person with the female voice, whom they addressed as `Auntie` or `Miss Tan`.

65

Therefore, from the prostitutes` evidence, all that could be ascertained was that the person with the female voice would undoubtedly know that they were prostitutes and that Lim worked with her.

Lim How Kim`s evidence

65

Lim had pleaded guilty earlier in DAC 7759/96 to one count of managing a place of assignation and two counts of knowingly living on the earnings of the prostitution of another. He admitted that the prostitutes worked for him. However, he testified that he decided on the amount to charge every time and denied knowing the respondent or her husband.

65

The prosecution therefore applied to cross-examine Lim under s 147 of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1990 Ed). As far as relevant, Lim said the following in cross-examination by the prosecution:

I have heard the name Anna. I have not seen her. I knew the names from the newspaper advertisement. This is in relation to - I do not know - permanent wave saloon. I have ever spoken to Anna. She has never called me but I have phoned her from the newspaper particulars. I am in this line. I call her if she has customers for my girls. If there were customers she would call back.

I did receive some calls but I do not know who the caller was. The caller wanted to tell me to send me to various places. He or she contacted me over the phone, my handphone. Its number is 8245913. This person who called is a female. I agreed to supply girls. I was informed of the price the customers were to pay and I would tell my girls to collect from customers. The number is 7334267.

On my part I send the girls to a certain place, tell her how much to collect and wait for her return downstairs. This number 7334267 - I do not know if the girls know. Sometimes I ask them to contact this number, sometimes my number. I told the girls to phone this number to inform the other side the girl had arrived.

65

With regard to the events on the day of his arrest, he said:

On this day, caller of 7334267 asked me to send the girls there. I did so. The money would be handed to me by the girls - all money they receive. My cut ie if it is $150, I will get $110 and the one who introduced the customers would get $40. It would be the caller at 7334267. I would receive a call from this number and would be asked to go to various places at City Plaza. There would be people waiting for me there. I will be given the registration number of a car. I go up to it and hand over the money to the driver. The car number is 8338. I cannot remember the prefix or suffix. It is a Mercedes. I do not know the size. It is white. [Emphasis added.]

65

The above testimony would have provided evidence to prove the complicity of the respondent and her husband who owns a white Mercedes with the same...