Public Prosecutor v Poh Oh Sim
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Yong Pung How CJ |
Judgment Date | 02 November 1990 |
Neutral Citation | [1990] SGHC 84 |
Docket Number | Magistrate's Appeal No 291 of 1988 |
Date | 02 November 1990 |
Published date | 19 September 2003 |
Year | 1990 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Chan Seng Onn (Deputy Senior State Counsel) |
Citation | [1990] SGHC 84 |
Defendant Counsel | B Ganesh (Sai Lim & Ganesh) |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Subject Matter | Prevention of Corruption Act,When appellate court may interfere with finding of trial court,Attempting to obtain gratification,Parts of prosecution case unexplained,Accused electing to remain silent,Whether offence of corruption made out,Inflated quotation coupled with follow-up queries by accused,s 6(a) Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 104, 1970 Ed),s 261 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Appellate court's assessment of trial evidence,Appeal,Role of appellate court in assessing finding of fact,Statutory offences,Trial court making finding of fact,Close of prosecution case,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Trials,Whether court entitled to convict the accused,Criminal Law |
Cur Adv Vult
This is an appeal by the public prosecutor against the acquittal of the respondent on two charges of corruption under s 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 104, 1970 Ed) (the Act).
On the first charge (DAC 1487/87) the respondent was charged:
that you, on a day in August 1986 at Temple Estate Contract I worksite, Singapore, being an agent, namely, a clerk-of-works in the employ of the Housing and Development Board, did corruptly attempt to obtain for yourself a gratification of an unspecified amount from one Choo Chin Mun, the project co-ordinator of Evan Lim & Co (Pte) Ltd, as an inducement for showing favour in relation to your principal ` s affairs by agreeing to supervise beyond official working hours the work undertaken by the aforesaid Evan Lim & Co (Pte) Ltd in respect of Temple Estate Contract I, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 6(a) of the Prevention of Corrup tion Act (Cap 104).
On the second charge (DAC 1488/87) the respondent was charged:
that you, on a day in August 1986 at Temple Estate Contract I worksite, Singapore, being an agent, namely, a clerk-of-works in the employ of the Housing and Development Board, did corruptly attempt to obtain for yourself a gratification, to wit, a tiling works sub-contract at Temple Estate Contract I valued at $986,477.80 (nine hundred eight-six thousand four hundred and seventy-seven dollars a nd eighty cents) from Evan Lim & Co (Pte) Ltd for Star-Tile General Contractor as an inducement for forbearing to show favour in relation to your principal` s affairs by being lenient in the supervision and thereby ensuring that the work in respect of Temple Estate Contract I could go on smoothly, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 104).
On both charges, the prosecution` s case was based almost entirely on the evidence of Choo Chin Mun, the project co-ordinator of the contracting company, whose evidence was corroborated by the evidence of Evan Lim Lam Hong, the managing director of the contracting company, who was also therefore Choo Chin Mun` s boss.
In the learned judge` s grounds of decision for dismissing both charges against the respondent, it is clear that he formed a poor opinion of these two witnesses. He was greatly influenced in his opinion of them by what he considered to be two material discrepancies in Choo Chin Mun` s evidence. In addition, he was critical of the demeanour in court of Choo Chin Mun, and came to the conclusion that he was not a witness of truth and should be disbelieved. This in turn adversely affected his opinion of the evidence of Evan Lim Lam Hong.
In the court` s view, these discrepancies in Choo` s evidence about his boss` s reaction and the date he reported the incident to his boss seriously raises the question whether such an incident regarding his conversation with Poh as alleged by Choo actually took place. In the court` s view, these discrepancies could not be due to a mere lapse of memory on Choo` s part as the evidence were given within a short period of time.
In the circumstances, the court had serious doubts whether Choo` s evidence that Poh had told him that if Choo could not give this job to his friend ` I don` t think we can work smoothly` is true, and that as this pertains to a vital ingredient of the prosecution` s case the court accordingly acquitted and discharged Poh of this charge.
There is...
To continue reading
Request your trial- R Alagiyasolan v Public Prosecutor
-
Tan Wei Yi v Public Prosecutor
...178 (refd) P Hua v PP [2004] SGHC 33 (folld) PP v Azman bin Abdullah [1998] 2 SLR (R) 351; [1998] 2 SLR 704 (folld) PP v Poh Oh Sim [1990] 2 SLR (R) 408; [1990] SLR 1047 (folld) PP v Tubbs Julia Elizabeth [2001] 2 SLR (R) 716; [2001] 4 SLR 75 (folld) Sundara Moorthy Lankatharan v PP [1997] ......
- Ng Chiew Kiat v Public Prosecutor
- Public Prosecutor v Hla Win
-
Case Note
...45 at [34]. 44 See, for example, Jagatheesan s/o Krishnasamy v Public Prosecutor [2006] 4 SLR(R) 45; Public Prosecutor v Poh Oh Sim [1990] 2 SLR(R) 408; ADF v Public Prosecutor [2010] 1 SLR 874; Ng Soo Hin v Public Prosecutor [1993] 3 SLR(R) 703; Public Prosecutor v Azman bin Abdullah [1998......
-
Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
...as to whether the decision is right. It must be convinced that the decision is wrong: see PP v Hla Win[1995] 2 SLR 424, PP v Poh Oh Sim[1990] SLR 1047 and Ng Chiew Kiat v PP[2000] 1 SLR 370. SENTENCING Reformative training The issue whether an offender can be sentenced to consecutive terms ......