Public Prosecutor v Mike Madhan

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Marvin Bay
• Judgment Date: 07 August 2013
• Neutral Citation: [2013] SGDC 239
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC 4307/2013, DAC 5146/2012 and DAC 5147/2012, Magistrate’s Appeal No.146 /2013/01
• Year: 2013
• Published date: 28 August 2013
• Hearing Date: 01 July 2013,21 February 2013,09 May 2013,22 February 2013,06 May 2013,10 May 2013,28 June 2013,07 May 2013,08 May 2013
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPP Miss Kavita Kandesan
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Baiross and Mr Addul Rahman
• Citation: [2013] SGDC 239

District Judge Marvin Bay: The charges

The accused Mike Madhan s/o Joseph Segaran claimed trial to 3 charges of abetting one Mohammed Fauzi bin Jabbar to commit or attempt to commit acts of harassment contrary to section 28 of the Moneylenders Act (Cap 188) at various places, being Block 117C Rivervale Drive #08-56 between 9 pm and 10 pm on the 5th day of February in DAC 4307 of 2012 (which was amended at the close of prosecution’s case to ‘sometime on the 5th day of February 2012 vide Charge C1AA) Hougang Avenue 8, Block 626 #11-168 in DAC 5146 of 2012 sometime at night on 28 January 2012. Bedok South Avenue 1 #04-771, sometime before 10:57 pm of 28 January 2012 (Exhibit C3 AA) The charges alluded to a consistent modus operandi and manner of involvement of the accused. All essentially alleged that Mr Mike Madhan had provided transport for the said Mr Fauzi bin Jabbar to facilitate his harassment activities, which entailed writing crude repayment messages on surfaces at the debtors’ premises with indelible markers and splashing with orange (first charge) or red (third charge) paint on the units concerned.

Elements of proof

For the actus reus and mens rea to be established, the prosecution had to establish the following : The accused did perform the acts of transporting one Muhammad Fauzi Bin Jabbar (‘Fauzi’) to the locations named in the charges at the alleged date and time; The accused knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that Fauzi intended to go to the said locations to commit harassment; As a result of the accused transporting Fauzi to the said locations, Fauzi did in fact commit harassment on the said locations (This applies only to the first and third charges).

List of prosecution witnesses

The prosecution called the following witnesses to prove their case:

Name		Role	Witness
Tong Ee Phor		Arresting Officer	PW1
Kenneth Ong	Arresting Officer	PW2
Loo Lian Jie	Complainant	PW3
Yui Kay Beng	Complainant	PW4
Mohd Halme	Statement Recorder	PW5
Mohammed Fauzi Bin Jabbar	Sentenced co-accused	PW6
Mohammed Nor Faisal Bin Ghani	Sentenced witness	PW7
Tan Bee Song	Investigation officer/Statement Recorder	PW8

Evidence of PW 1 SSG Tong Ee Phor.

PW1 testified on the circumstances leading to the accused’s arrest in the wee hours of 6 February 2012. PW1 and PW2 had been performing a foot patrol, when the officers came across two subjects seated inside a vehicle parked on a road along Tiong Bahru Plaza. SSG Tong identified the accused as the person at driver’s seat of the silver Suzuki Swift SGB 7060 G. The other individual at the rear left passenger seat was Mohammad Nor Faizal Bin Ghani (‘Faizal’).

He decided to screen the two subjects. SSG Tong testified that they avoided eye contact as he and PW2 walked pass the vehicle. When questioned, Mr Madhan informed that he was waiting for a friend who had gone to the ATM to withdraw money, and that he and his friends intended to go fishing later.

Upon the screening results becoming available, PW1 was alerted that while the accused was untraced, his backseat passenger Faizal was on the ‘wanted list’ for failing to report for a urine test. PW1 called for reinforcements and executed an arrest thereafter. He accordingly documented these in his police report¹ which states his arrest of Faisal for his failure to report for urine testing, possession of drug utensils, assisting in moneylending activities, and possession of obscene disc; and, Mr Madhan for assisting in money lending activities.

Items found in Mike Madhan’s vehicle

While his colleague CPL Kenneth Ong (PW2) escorted Faizal to the police vehicle that had come on the scene, SSG Tong searched the vehicle in the accused’s presence. He found and seized some 21 items from the car. Most salient to the charge are the following items taken from the rear passenger seat of Mr Madhan’s Suzuki Swift: 4 paper cups containing orange paint, sealed with cling wrap and wrapped in a black plastic bag; 1 red marker; 1 pair of plastic gloves.

PW2 Corporal Kenneth Ong gave evidence which was similar in account as to the sequence of events. The officers differed slightly on the presence of a paint smell with PW1 not noticing a paint smell until he uncovered the plastic wrap sealing the cup of paint. PW2 on the other hand testified that he could smell ‘a bit of paint’ when the rear passenger window was wound down.

Incident of Harassment on Rivervale Drive

The next witness was PW 3 Mr Loo Lian Jie who gave evidence of harassment with regard to the 1st Charge. Loo was the occupant of #08-56, Block 117C Rivervale Drive, having resided there for 13 years together with his parents and 2 younger siblings. The unit was owned by PW3’s father.

On the 5th February 2012, whilst at work, PW3 received a call from his mother. She informed that their house had been splashed with paint. Upon receiving the information, PW3 immediately rushed back home and noticed orange paint on his unit. He also observed some scribbling on the walls next to the 8th floor staircase landing of the block. PW 3, who worked irregular hours at a food court, could not recall the time of that he received the call but formed the impression that it was in the evening. PW 3 admitted to incurring debts and borrowing from loan sharks.

Incident of harassment at Bedok South Avenue 1

PW4 Mr Yui Kay Beng was the owner of #04-771, Block 23, Bedok South Avenue 1, having resided there since 2000. PW4 had rented out a portion of his flat to two brothers. On the 28th January 2012, He reached the vicinity of his block after work sometime about 9.00pm. He proceeded to the coffeeshop located around the vicinity to have his dinner. Shortly thereafter, he received a call from his tenant informing that his unit had been splashed with paint and a crude repayment demand ‘O$P$’ scrawled on the walls of the 4th floor stair case landing of the said block. He also noticed red paint splashed on his unit and saw similar scrawls on the walls of the 4th floor stair case landing. PW4 immediately reported the matter to the police. Mr Yui was unable to tell exactly when these acts were perpetrated, he would only be certain that he had notified ‘sometime past 10 p.m.’ on the 28th January 2012.

With regard to the 2nd charge, there was no testimony of any harassment, as the prosecution’s case is only that an attempt was made at the property in Hougang, which had been thwarted by the presence of a security close circuit camera.

Evidence of PW5 Fauzi bin Jabbar

PW 6 Fauzi bin Jabbar (Fauzi) was a sentenced co-accused person who, upon pleading guilty to seven separate offences, was serving a long imprisonment term for such varied crimes as LT 2 diamorphine consumption, drug paraphernalia possession, and various unlicensed moneylending² charges. Unfortunately, as he gave his testimony the court had to draw an unmistakable impression that Fauzi was a most uncooperative and evasive witness, barely concealing his hostility in both demeanour and speech to these proceedings. As a sampling of his evidence in chief: this is the manner he gave evidence in court³: Q Can you please tell the Court what happened when you were in the car that night with Faizal and Mike? A What happened, uh? I sit down my seat, fasten my seatbelt, lah. Q Then? A Then---then the car move, ah. Q Did you have any conversations with Mike and Faizal? A Yes, uh, but I can’t recall what conversation, uh. Q Why were you in the car? What was the purpose of you being in the car? A I think go take jolly ride, uh, I think. Q So you had no specific destinations in mind? You did not intend to go anywhere specifically? A Of course I do, uh, ma’am. Q Where? Where did you intend to go? A To the place that I want to go, lah. Q Sorry? A To the places that I want to go. Q And on that day where did you go? A Can you please read---if you say, “on that day”, is what day, Ma’am? When is that? Q I'm still talking about the 5th of February, when you were with Mike and Faizal in the Suzuki Swift car, that incident. A To be exact, so I don’t know when he fetched me also I don’t know. So I cannot recall. To where also I can’t recall.

The manner he gave his evidence affected lackadaisical disinterest. He frequently drawing a compete blank in terms of recall, as can be seen from the passage above. He made a half-hearted attempt to suggest that Mr Madhan might not be aware that he had been driving him to harass debtors on behalf of illegal moneylenders. This was because he also used the accused to ferry him around for other activities, including moving his belongings and clubbing. He also stated that he had communicated with the co-accused Faizal in Malay in the night of 5 February 2012, and to only taking their paint cups out when they had exited the car, to prevent Mike from knowing too much.

The DPP pointed out that this contradicted his two statements made on 11May 2012 and 24 May 2012, as well as the Amalgamated Statement of Facts he had admitted to on 24 October 2012 which were very specific on the accused’s knowledge of his illegal activities. Fauzi claimed that he was either ‘high’ or suffering unspecified withdrawal symptoms while giving his statements. He even suggested that he may have been lying in his admissions in the Amalgamated Statement of Facts, as the investigating officer had told him that it was permissible to do so. His stock response to all questions that were raised on any discrepancies between his court testimony and recorded statements were of this manner and tone⁴:

Ma’am, maybe this---on the time of period, when I give statement I'm still on my withdrawal symptom, not so---not say maybe, it is. And I'm still on my withdrawal symptom, I was intoxicated and … one of your IO already inform me...