Public Prosecutor v Ng Wan Fu Ivan

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Kamala Ponnampalam
• Judgment Date: 09 September 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] SGDC 366
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC 28381 - 4 of 2010
• Year: 2012
• Published date: 01 October 2012
• Hearing Date: 05 January 2011,06 March 2012,23 May 2011,16 May 2011,05 March 2012,24 October 2011,18 May 2011,20 December 2010,29 February 2012,05 June 2012,23 March 2011,21 March 2011,30 June 2011,09 June 2011,31 October 2011,06 January 2011,03 May 2012,22 March 2011,23 December 2010,25 October 2011,04 January 2011,24 March 2011
• Plaintiff Counsel: Navin S Thevar, Deputy Public Prosecutor
• Defendant Counsel: Alfred Dodwell
• Citation: [2012] SGDC 366

District Judge Kamala Ponnampalam:

The accused, Ng Wan Fu Ivan, is 28 years old and was a Volunteer Special Constabulary Corporal (VSC) with the Singapore Police Force. He also held full-time employment with the Singapore Armed Forces as a technician holding the rank of Corporal. The accused claimed trial to 4 charges under section 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241). Three of the charges were for corruptly attempting to obtain gratification in the form of sexual favours from three prostitutes who were PRC nationals. The fourth charge was for accepting gratification of a cash sum of $108 from one of the three prostitutes. The trial spanned over 22 days with several adjournments in between, primarily sought for by the accused. The accused wanted an adjournment to secure his grandmother’s attendance in court so she could testify on his behalf at the voir dire, but she never did. He next sought an adjournment to appoint a new defence counsel after his first counsel discharged himself mid-way through the trial. Later on, the accused applied for an adjournment to engage an expert witness to challenge the prosecution’s forensic witnesses’ evidence relating to the telephone records. He was granted not one but two adjournments for this purpose but in the end, the accused did not engage any such expert. At the conclusion of the trial, I found the accused guilty and convicted him on all 4 charges. I sentenced him to 12 months imprisonment on each charge. The terms of imprisonment in the first two charges were ordered to run consecutively making a total sentence of 24 months imprisonment. In addition, under section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241), I ordered the accused to pay a penalty of $108. I shall now set out the basis of my decision.

Undisputed Facts

The accused did not deny being acquainted with one of the three prostitutes, Zhu Lin. He also admitted receiving a red packet from her containing cash of $108 on the first day of Chinese New Year in 2008. The accused’s hand phone was seized during his arrest. This was the same hand phone which was subsequently examined by prosecution’s expert witness from the Technology Crime Forensic Branch at the Criminal Investigation Department.

The Prosecution’s Case

The prosecution’s case in essence is that the accused had either attempted to obtain or accepted gratification from the three PRC nationals who had engaged in prostitution in the Geylang area. These gratifications were inducements for the accused to refrain from arresting the three prostitutes on suspicion of vice-related activities and in the case of the second charge, as a reward for providing Zhu Lin with tip-offs on impending raids by the police. These acts were related to the accused’s principal’s affairs. The prosecution submitted that there was a corrupt element in these transactions and the accused had received the gratifications with the guilty knowledge of the corrupt element.

The prosecution led evidence from 7 witnesses. Three of them were the three PRC nationals named in the four charges. They testified that the accused had solicited for the cash and sexual favours from them when he met them in the Geylang area. A fourth witness was the officer from the Technology Crime Forensic Branch who gave his expert opinion relating to his examination of the accused’s hand phone containing phone calls as well as SMSes saved in the accused’s phone. The prosecution also relied on the inculpatory statements made by the accused to the CPIB officers.

The testimonies of many of the witnesses were lengthy. I will simply highlight the salient points in their evidence in the following paragraphs.

Evidence of Zhu Lin, PW1

Zhu Lin testified that towards the end of 2007, she would go to the Geylang area to solicit for business as a prostitute. One night, while she was soliciting for business in Geylang Lorong 14, the accused approached her. He asked her if she knew what he was working as. He then told her that he is a police officer and that he could arrest her anytime. He added that if she did not wish to be arrested, then she should give him her hand phone number, which she did. Thereafter, he called Zhu Lin frequently. Zhu Lin said that the accused’s hand phone number was “98814712”. The accused asked Zhu Lin to be his friend and to provide him with sexual services at his home. He promised her that if she did, he would inform her of impending raids conducted by the police. Zhu Lin however, avoided his advances by coming up with excuses like she was at home with her family. Zhu Lin said that the accused addressed her as “Yan Zi”.

Zhu Lin also told the court that the accused would also ask her for red packets. Once, when they were at a coffee shop having a drink, the accused said that Chinese New Year was approaching and he had asked her for a red packet. He then pointed out a man in his 50s who had walked past them. The accused informed Zhu Lin that this man was from Bedok Police Division and whenever he was in the area, he would be arresting women. He told Zhu Lin to be alert towards this individual. Shortly before the first day of Chinese New Year in 2008, the accused gave Zhu Lin a call. He asked her for money and Zhu Lin replied that she had no money. The accused then threatened her that if she did not give him a red packet, he would arrest her. He instructed her to meet him at Geylang Lorong 14 on the first day of Chinese New Year to pass him the red packet. Zhu Lin complied with the accused’s request and on the first day of Chinese New Year, she met the accused in Geylang Lorong 14 and passed him a red packet with $108 in it along with two mandarin oranges. The accused kept the red packet but did not accept the oranges.

Thereafter, the accused would still contact Zhu Lin often. He would keep asking her to be his friend and to provide him with sexual services. Zhu Lin explained that from the end of 2007 when she started to work to Chinese New Year 2008, she was able to solicit in Geylang without being arrested because the accused had told her that should there be any raids, he would inform her. In fact, there was one occasion when the accused did inform her over the phone of a raid by the Bedok Police Division. This was before she was arrested. Subsequently, the accused called her again to ask if she had managed to escape. Zhu Lin said that she had given him the red packet hoping that he would inform her of future raids. She also hoped that he would stop threatening her.

During cross-examination, Zhu Lin denied the prosecution’s suggestions that it was she who first approached the accused in the coffee shop to chat him up because she knew that he was a police officer but the accused tried to ignore her. She also denied the defence’s suggestion that she met the accused a second time in the coffee shop and tried to get tip offs on raids and police patrols from him. She further denied that she had given the red packet to the accused as a Chinese New Year present and not for any corrupt purpose.

Evidence of You Junhong, PW2

You Junhong told the court that from around May 2007, she has been working as a prostitute at Geylang Lorong 14. One morning, sometime at the end of April 2007, she was standing at Geylang Lorong 14 when the accused came up to her and told her that there are anti-vice operations being carried out in Geylang Lorong 6 and Geylang Lorong 8. You Junhong thanked him and returned to her apartment. That night when Yu Junhong saw the accused, she went over and offered to buy the accused a packet of cigarettes. The accused declined the offer. Yu Junhong then offered to buy the accused dinner. Again the accused declined the offer. Instead, the accused pointed at Hotel 81 and asked her to check into a room in the hotel with him. You Junhong understood the remark to mean that he was asking to have sex with her. She told him that she had something on that day and walked away.

As she walked away, a lady came up to You Junhong and asked her why she was talking to the accused. You Junhong told the lady that the accused had tipped her off earlier that day. The lady then told her that the accused is a police officer. A few days later, You Junhong met the accused again. He asked her how she was feeling that day and You Junhong said that she was having her menses. The accused told her not to lie. You Junhong replied that she was not lying and that she will look for him when her menses had cleared. You Junhong met him a third time at the same location. The accused asked her if she wanted to go with him. You Junhong replied that she will buy him a pack of cigarettes or even a meal. The accused was “pissed off” and told her, “don’t ever let me see you again”. He added that he was a police officer and he could arrest her anytime. He took out a pass and showed it to her. You Junhong said that she became fearful and she did not respond but she simply walked away. Thereafter, You Junhong did not go to Geylang Lorong 14 again. You Junhong told the court that she knew the accused then as “Xiao Gui”. She also said that she only got to know Zhu Lin after her arrest on 08.03.2008. During cross-examination, You Junhong denied that she had falsely implicated the accused because she had seen the accused in CPIB when she was called down for questioning and that she had been told by Zhu Lin that the accused should be identified.

Evidence of Zhang Wei

Zhang Wei testified that she has been working as an illegal sex worker in Geylang Lorong 14 since July 2007. Sometime in August 2007, Zhang Wei saw the accused at Geylang Lorong 14 and approached him to offer her sexual services. He asked her what were her charges and she replied $60. He asked if the service could be provided in his home as he did not want to go to a hotel. Zhang Wei said that usually the transaction would be done in a hotel and they do not go to the customer’s home. The accused then...