Public Prosecutor v Lim Boon Hong

JudgeLow Wee Ping
Judgment Date09 October 2015
Neutral Citation[2015] SGDC 285
Citation[2015] SGDC 285
Docket NumberDAC 907203 of 2014 and others, Magistrate’s Appeal Number—MA 9167/2015/01
Published date16 October 2015
Hearing Date06 July 2015,Invalid date,06 May 2015,07 May 2015,28 May 2015,15 July 2015
Plaintiff CounselMr Tow Chew Chi
Defendant CounselThe accused in person,Ms Alice Tan (CLAS)
CourtDistrict Court (Singapore)
District Judge Low Wee Ping: The first charge

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 – owner of the stolen Rolex watch; PW2 Mdm Tan – owner of “KB Watch & Jewellery”; and PW3 ASP Keh – the investigation officer.

PW1 Mr Kelvin Kaw – owner of the Rolex watch He lost his wallet, handphone, and Rolex watch on 12 December 2013

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 to sell a watch, "I will take a look at the watch ... And then we will talk about the prices ... I will take down his NRIC number ... After we have discussed about the prices and we have concluded the price, we will take down the particulars and put it into this form (P6).” She was referring to her shop’s receipt (P6).

Her shop’s receipt (P6) had the name “Lim Boon Hong”, his NRIC number, and his address stated in it

The learned DPP Mr Tow asked PW2 Mdm Kaw: “Whose name appears on this receipt (P6)?”

She replied: “Lim Boon Hong (Q: And the NRIC below that, whose NRIC number if that?) Lim Boon Hong (Q: And the address below, whose address is that?) Lim Boon Hong as well (Q: The particulars state: 'A Rolex watch 116660 v436136'. How is this item related to this receipt?) This Rolex watch belongs to Lim Boon Hong."

The “Lim Boon Hong” admitted that the Rolex watch belonged to him in P6

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: "He admitted this item belongs to him."

The Rolex watch was sold to her shop for $9,500

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?) Lim Boon Hong (Q: Now, is this watch related to the receipt marked as P6?) Correct. ... It is this watch. (Q: This watch mentioned in the receipt?) Yes, it is.”

She agreed with “Lim Boon Hong” on the price and passed the cash to him

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: "He came to my shop and asked me if I am willing to buy. And then we had an agreement on the price and I took down his NRIC number and I went into the shop to take the money. (Q: And what happened to the money after that?) I passed the money to Lim Boon Hong. (Q: The money is in cash, can I confirm that?) Yes. (Q: Was this Lim Boon Hong with anyone when he sold you this watch?) Yes, there was someone. ... Male (Q: When you were conversing with Lim Boon Hong, what language did you use?) I cannot remember. (Q: But you have no problems talking to him?) No problem."

A Malay man who had purchased the Rolex watch later, was told by the Rolex Company that it was a stolen item

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 and was told that it was a stolen item."

She obtained the name and NRIC number from “Lim Boon Hong”

Mr Tow asked: "One last question. The name and NRIC written on the receipt, from whom did you obtain these details from?"

She replied: "Lim Boon Hong ... I took a look at his NRIC. (Q: I mean who gave you the NRIC?) Lim Boon Hong

She could not recognise the accused in court

Mr Tow asked: “Do you recognise this man seated here?”

She replied: “I can’t recall."

Cross-examination – she was not very sure about other facts of the case

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, but I will like to say this to the Judge, firstly the money was not passed to me. Secondly, the person who mentioned about the prices, it was not me, it was my friend. Money was not passed to me, it was passed to my friend. Indeed, I did sign on the document and the NRIC belongs to me. And I said in front of witness and my friend that I should not be passing this NRIC to anybody and anyone. And then Tan Keng Seng said this: ‘I need the IC and I cannot run home to get my IC’. And I was under psychiatric medication, I took medication that day.”

Question by this court – she and her son both dealt with the Lim Boon Hong

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: “We both did. (Court: So you could have signed this receipt or your son could have signed the receipt?) Usually it happens that, after my son has signed on the receipt, I will be the one to get the money.”

PW3 ASP Keh – the investigation officer He recorded a statement from the accused (P7)

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 IMH

In 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?) Yes, he was. ... Yes, he was able to understand my questions. ... He didn’t deliberate before answering my questions. He was able to give clear answers to the questions and even offered details when required. (Q: Did he seek any clarifications during the interview?) Yes, he did. So, for example, if you look at the question 2, he actually offered the details of this accomplice, so he actually took the particulars of this person from his wallet, which was actually locked up. ... It’s because when you are warded in IMH, the person’s belongings will be locked up by the staff. So these particulars were actually written on a piece of paper, so he actually requested for his wallet to be given to him so that he could give me the particulars. (Q: After recording this statement, was it interpreted back to the accused?) Yes, I read it out in Mandarin to him. ... Some Hokkiens were being used and some English words, such as the name of the shop and the names were being used in English. (Q: Did the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT