Public Prosecutor v Loh Chai Huat

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Hoo Sheau Peng
• Judgment Date: 31 May 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] SGDC 174
• Year: 2001
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Citation: [2001] SGDC 174
• Court: District Court (Singapore)

JUDGMENT:

Grounds of Decision

1. The respondent claimed trial to the following charge:

You, Loh Chai Huat, M/38 yrs, NRIC S1553376E, are charged that you, on 2 August 1998, at about 0940 hrs, in Singapore, did knowingly cause the computer at your work station at Ang Mo Kio Police Station to perform a function for the purpose of securing access without authority to data contained in the computer system of the Ministry of Home Affairs, to wit, you entered the user account number F03402 to secure access without authority to data relating to one Michael Gracia, NRIC No. 1808828B, contained in the Computerised Investigation Management System, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 3(1) of the Computer Misuse Act (Cap 50A, 1993 Ed). [italics mine]

At the conclusion of the trial, I acquitted the respondent of the charge. As the prosecution has appealed against the decision, I now furnish full reasons.

Undisputed facts

2. These facts were undisputed. The respondent joined the Singapore Police Force (SPF) in June 1986, and was posted to the Ang Mo Kio Police Division (AMK Police Division) where he remained till the time of the trial. From 1 March 1991, he began carrying out work as an investigation officer. On 2 August 1998, the respondent was a senior investigation officer, and was in charge of a team of investigation officers investigating into general offences. His rank was that of staff sergeant. The respondent has won a number of commendations, and was quite an outstanding officer. At the AMK Police Division, the respondent got to know one Royston Sim Bok Huat (Mr Sim), who was senior in rank to him. They were both in the investigation branch, but were not in the same investigation team.

3. As for Mr Sim, he joined the SPF in March 1985, and was posted to the AMK Police Division in 1987. From 1988, Mr Sim performed investigation officers duties there. In 1990, he was promoted to the rank of sergeant, and became a senior investigation officer. In August 1997, Mr Sim was promoted to the rank of probationary inspector, and was posted to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID). From October 1997 to August 1998, he attended the Senior Police Officers course at the Police Academy. After he completed the course, he returned to the CID.

4. The SPF developed a database system known as the Computerised Investigation Management System (CRIMES) that allowed investigation officers to screen the particulars of persons in the course of their work from their workstations, making it easier and quicker to access data. In August 1998, CRIMES was a pilot project in the AMK Police Division. The other police divisions, including the CID, had other computer systems but not CRIMES, which was supposed to be the advanced system. A standard operating procedure (SOP) on accessing CRIMES including purposes for such access - was issued only sometime in July 1999. The user manual for CRIMES was also released after August 1998.

5. To access the system, each investigation officer was assigned a personal user identification code and a password. To conduct a screening, apart from entering his personal user identification code and password, an investigation officer also had to enter the report number of a case he was working on. CRIMES was to be accessed for work purposes only, and not for private and personal reasons. An audit trial was kept of the access of the system.

6. As an investigation officer of the AMK Police Division, the respondent was issued with a personal user identification code, F03402, to access CRIMES. On 2 August 1998, the respondent accessed CRIMES using his personal user identification code, password and a report number, F/970925/0065D, to screen the birth-date of one subject with NRIC number S 1808828B. The screening, captured in the audit trial, did not relate to the case with report number, F/970925/0065D. In fact, on 30 July 1998, the respondent had concluded investigations of the case with the report number. The respondent conducted the screening at the request of Mr Sim, and gave the birth-date to Mr Sim. Subsequently, Mr Sim put the information to his private and personal use. At that time, Mr Sim was senior in rank to the respondent. With that, I turn to the evidence in dispute.

Prosecution evidence

(i) Royston Sim Bok Huat (PW1)

7. In either July or August 1998, Mr Sim contacted the respondent, and asked the latter to do a screening. Over the telephone, Mr Sim gave the respondent the NRIC number of a subject, and requested him to get the birth-date. Mr Sim told the respondent it was for his mother - for prayers. Mr Sim told the respondent not to worry as the information would be used just for prayers. The respondent did not say anything to Mr Sim. Mr Sim said he told the respondent not to worry because Mr Sim knew it was not an official request. The respondent agreed to help. A day or two later, the respondent gave him the information over the telephone. At that time, Mr Sim was attending the course at the Police Academy, and was not working on any cases. Mr Sim called the respondent because they were friends.

8. Mr Sim elaborated on the reason why he made the request. Mr Sims mother had the birth-date of the person, but she forgot it. She asked Mr Sim to confirm the birth-date. Basically, the person was a friend of Mr Sims brother, and owed the brother a sum of money. Mr Sims mother wanted the birth-date to pray, so that hopefully, the person would return his brother the money. Such background was not made known to the respondent.

9. In cross-examination, Mr Sim said that the respondent would not know when exactly he was posted to the Police Academy, and then back to the CID. When Mr Sim called the respondent with his request, Mr Sim did not tell the respondent whether he was at the CID or the Police Academy.

10. As a senior officer, if Mr Sim were to make a request for screening, in the normal course of events, a junior officer would carry out the screening. There could be many reasons for the request. If nothing were to be actually said about the purpose for the screening, it would be normal for the junior officer to assume an official purpose for the request. Quite apart from CRIMES, there were other systems that allowed the screening of subjects.

11. Police officers called one another from different divisions to ask for information. However, Mr Sim has not come across the situation where the computer system in one division was down or busy, and the police officers from that division called police officers from other divisions to ask for information.

12. On the events leading to the present charge, Mr Sim gave more than one statement to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB). He also gave a statement to assisting defence counsel, Sangiv Rajan (Mr Sangiv), in the presence of the investigation officer of the case and his own lawyer. In the last statement to the CPIB, Mr Sim said that at the time of the request, he did not tell the respondent the request for screening was for a private purpose. Similarly, in October 2000, when Mr Sim spoke to Mr Sangiv, Mr Sim also said that what took place in the first conversation with the respondent was that he had asked for information and the respondent agreed to give it to him.

13. On the morning of the trial, Mr Sim was shown his first statement to the CPIB. Only then did he recall what he had said to the CPIB, and he based his testimony in court on the first statement. Leaving aside all the statements, Mr Sim admitted that he could not be sure when he told the respondent that the request was for a private purpose, and whether this was mentioned during a subsequent conversation rather than the conversation when he first made the request.

14. In re-examination, Mr Sim was asked if he could confirm whether what he said in the first statement to the CPIB of 27 January 1999 was true, and he replied, Yes, I suppose. If someone were to ask him to screen a subject in CRIMES, he would ask the person for the purpose to make sure it was official. He might do the screening. He has come across the situation where a junior officer complied with a screening request without asking for the purpose.

(ii) Mohd Jazlan Bin Kamilin (PW2)

15. One Staff Sergeant Mohd Jazlan bin Kamilin (SSgt Jazlan) was the officer-in-charge of the computer section at the AMK Police Division. He produced extracts of a user manual showing the screens within CRIMES, and these were admitted and marked as Exh P2.

16. SSgt Jazlan explained that at the login screen to CRIMES, a personal user identification code and password were required to gain access. At the next screen, particulars of the case were to be entered, including the report number of the case. This was necessary to validate the existence of such a case. Without the report number, one could not proceed to do any screening. The screening must be related to the case. It was not proper to conduct a screening not related to a case. After the screening was completed, the investigation officer was supposed to print out a copy of the screening result, to be attached to the physical investigation papers.

17. Requests from other divisions for screenings should be channelled to the main operations room. If an officer from another division were to request an officer to do a screening, the officer should direct the request to the operations room.

18. In cross-examination, SSgt Jazlan said that his evidence of what was proper or not in relation to the use of CRIMES was with reference to the SOP issued in July 1999. Regarding external requests for screening, there were such requests from other divisions. He was not familiar with how the investigation branch carried out investigations. He agreed that investigation officers would not normally channel matters to the operations room.

(iii) Wee Eng Seng (PW3)

19. From January 1997 to April 2000, Assistant Superintendent Wee Eng Seng (ASP Wee) was the Head...