Public Prosecutor v Pililis Georgios

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lee-Khoo Poh Choo
• Judgment Date: 15 May 2013
• Neutral Citation: [2013] SGDC 142
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: NS 124/2013, Magistrate’s Appeal No. 87/2013/01
• Year: 2013
• Published date: 27 May 2013
• Hearing Date: 23 April 2013
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPP Michael Quilinto
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Peter Fernando of M/S Leo Fernando
• Citation: [2013] SGDC 142

District Judge Lee Poh Choo: Background

This Judgement arose from the surety Mr Pililis Georgios (“Georgios”)’s appeal against my order that $20,000.00 be forfeited.

Mr Georgios stood bail for the Accused who was his son named Pililis Nikiforos, a Greek national, for $30,000.00 in respect of 3 charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act, Cap 185. These were: DAC 46882/2013 - for consumption of Methamphetamine under the enhanced provision which carried minimum 3 years’ imprisonment. DAC 46883/2013 – for possession of utensils for consumption of Class A Controlled Drugs; and DAC 46884/2013 – for possession of Buprenorphine, a Class A Controlled Drug.

On 12.3.2013 which was the scheduled date for further PTC, Mr Georgios and Counsel Mr Peter Fernando attended Court. The Accused, however, was absent. As a result, Warrant was issued for the Accused’s arrest. On the same day, a Notice to Surety on Breach of Bond was issued against Mr Georgios and he was ordered to pay the penalty of $30,000.00 or appear in Court 13 on 23.4.2013 at 9.30 a.m. to show cause why payment of the said sum should not be enforced against him.

At the show cause hearing on 23.4.2013, Mr Georgios who was again represented by Mr Peter Fernando, chose to show cause against forfeiture. Mr Georgios gave evidence on oath. He said that the Accused was a permanent resident of Singapore until it was revoked in 2000 when he refused to do National Service. The Accused remained a Greek citizen and continued to live in Singapore with his parents. He worked in Mr Georgios’s businesses which were Pililis Maritime Services and G. Pililis Engineering. The business was in ship repairs and as shipping agent.

According to Mr Georgios, after he bailed out the Accused on 18.12.2012, they were in daily contact as the Accused worked in his office and lived with him. And, the Accused also attended Court with Mr Georgios and Counsel on all the previous court dates.

Then, on 20.2.2013, the Accused did not go to office and neither did he return home. When Mr Georgios called the Accused on his mobile at about 7.30 pm of 20.2.2013, the latter said he was with his girl friend and would return home later. He did not do so. Mr Georgios said that between 21.2.2013 to 28.2.2013, he phoned and spoke to the Accused everyday. Each time, the Accused promised to go home but he did not. Instead, the Accused remained in his girl friend’s house. Mr Georgios did not know the girlfriend’s address except that it was somewhere in Hougang. Then, on 1.3.2013, the Accused did not answer Mr Georgios’s phone calls and sms. The Accused had switched off his mobile phone and since then, Mr Georgios lost contact with him. Neither was his girlfriend contactable.

It was 7 days later, on 8.3.2013, that Mr Georgios made a police report to notify that he had lost contact with the Accused. Mr Georgios claimed the delay in reporting was because he hoped his son (the Accused) would return home.

Was cause shown?

Counsel submitted that Mr Georgios had done all he could and the bail bond should not be forfeited. He argued – From the time Mr Georgios bailed out the Accused until 28.2.2013, they were in daily contact. Even after 20.2.2013, when the Accused left home and did not go to his (Mr Georgios’s) office, Mr Georgios spoke to the Accused on the phone every day until he lost contact on 28.2.2013. Counsel contended that even though Mr Georgios lost contact with the Accused from 1.3.2013, it did not mean the Accused would not attend Court on...