Public Prosecutor v Lim Boon Hong
Judge | Low Wee Ping |
Judgment Date | 09 October 2015 |
Neutral Citation | [2015] SGDC 285 |
Citation | [2015] SGDC 285 |
Docket Number | DAC 907203 of 2014 and others, Magistrate’s Appeal Number—MA 9167/2015/01 |
Published date | 16 October 2015 |
Hearing Date | 06 July 2015,Invalid date,06 May 2015,07 May 2015,28 May 2015,15 July 2015 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Mr Tow Chew Chi |
Defendant Counsel | The accused in person,Ms Alice Tan (CLAS) |
Court | District Court (Singapore) |
Lim Boon Hong (“the accused”) is 36 years old and a Singapore Citizen. He did not have a defence counsel. He pleaded not guilty to the following first charge of “assisting in disposal of stolen property”:-
“You … are charged that you, on 12 December 2013 ... in the afternoon, at KB Watch & Jewellery located at ... Golden Landmark Shopping Centre, Singapore, did voluntarily assist in disposing … one Rolex Sea Dweller Deepsea Watch … valued at $12,000, which you had reason to believe to be stolen property, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 414(1) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed).”
After a two-day trial, the accused was convicted. (He then pleaded guilty to three other charges.) He was sentenced to undergo preventive detention for 7 years. He has appealed against his conviction and sentence. I now give the reasons for my decision.
The prosecution’s three witnesses The prosecution’s three witnesses were:-
PW1 Mr Kelvin Kaw, age 39, was the owner of the Rolex watch stated in the above first charge.
On 12 December 2013, he filed a police report (P4). He reported to the police that, on 12 December 2013, at around 4.00 pm, he was at the Tanglin Club. He left his bag, phone, and watch in a locker at the Club’s changing room. He went for a shower. He thought he might have forgotten to lock his locker. After the shower, he went to the Club’s reading room. He could not find his phone. He went back to the changing room to check his locker. He then realised that his wallet and watch were also missing. His watch was a “Rolex Sea Dweller Deep Sea model, steel”. He also stated in the police report that the value of his Rolex watch was “$12,000”.
PW2 Mdm Tan – owner of “KB Watch & Jewellery” She was the owner of “KB Watch &Jewellery”PW2 Mdm Tan was the owner of the shop "KB Watch and Jewellery".
She testified that she also bought watches from customers. She explained that, when a customer walked into her shop
The learned DPP Mr Tow asked PW2 Mdm Kaw: “Whose name appears on this receipt (P6)?”
She replied: “
Mr Tow then asked: “Looking at this exhibit, P6, there is some terms and conditions in there. It states: 'I agree to sell the above particulars to KB Watch and Jewellery on the under-mentioned conditions. The items are not stolen or imitation. The items belong to me. I agree to sell the above particulars on my own willingness.' Now, what does this mean in relation to Lim Boon Hong in this receipt?"
She replied: "
Mr Tow asked: "How much was the watch sold to your shop for?”
She replied: "$9,500." (Q: Who copied down Lim Boon Hong’s particulars on to this receipt?) My son (Q: Look at the bottom left corner of this receipt. Who signed there?) My son (Q: Who signed on the bottom right corner?)
Mr Tow asked: "From your memory, what do you recall of this Lim Boon Hong when he sold you the watch on the 12th of December 2013 ... Like what did he say to you, what did you say to him?"
She replied: "
Mr Tow asked: "After you purchased the watch from Lim Boon Hong, can you tell us briefly what happened to the watch after that?"
She replied: "About a week later, there is a Malay (man) who came to my shop to purchase this watch ... After that, this Malay person told us that he or she went to check with the Rolex Company
Mr Tow asked: "One last question. The name and NRIC written on the receipt, from whom did you obtain these details from?"
She replied: "
Mr Tow asked: “Do you recognise this man seated here?”
She replied: “
The accused cross-examined PW2 Mdm Tan. In summary, she testified that, other than what was stated in her shop’s receipt (P6), she could not recall, or was not very sure about, the other facts of the case as “this case has been about a year plus”.
The accused stated to this court – he did sign P6 and was present at PW2 Mdm Tan’s shop At the end of his cross-examination of PW2 Mdm Tan, the accused stated to this court: “I do not have questions for the witness,
This court asked PW2 Mdm Tan: “Before I release you, Mdm Tan, who dealt with Lim Boon Hong, you or your son, on that day?”
She replied: “
PW3 ASP Keh was the investigation officer. On 15 January 2014, at about 12.08 pm, at the Institute of Mental Health (“IMH”), he recorded a statement (P7) from the accused. This court asked the accused whether he had given his statement (P7) voluntarily. He replied: “I was admitted to IMH because I was hearing voices”. Accordingly, this court directed that an ancillary hearing be held to determine the admissibility of the accused’s statement (P7).
The ancillary hearing Ancillary hearing - PW3 ASP Keh – the investigation officer He recorded P7 from the accused at IMHIn the ancillary hearing, PW3 ASP Keh testified that he recognised the accused in court. He stated that he had recorded a statement from the accused (P7) under s 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code on 15 January 2014. He stated that “It took 57 minutes ... It was recorded in IMH ward 35, in the interview room ... He was actually warded in IMH. (Q: Was he under arrest during this interview?) Not at the moment ... Another investigation officer was also present during the statement recording.”
On how he recorded P7M ASP Keh described the recording process. He testified: “It was done in an interview room where there is a round table, so the accused actually sat about two seats away from me, opposite me, and the other investigation officer sat on my left. So I recorded the statement over the table. (Q: Was the accused allowed to speak freely?)
To continue reading
Request your trial