Public Prosecutor v Quek Chin Chuan

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 01 June 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] SGHC 102
• Docket Number: Criminal Revision No 10 of 2000
• Date: 01 June 2000
• Year: 2000
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Jennifer Marie and Wong Kok Weng (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
• Citation: [2000] SGHC 102
• Defendant Counsel: Eddie Koh (Yik Koh Teo & Partners)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether evidence admissible,Courts and Jurisdiction,District court,Whether district court has power to compel police investigations,Whether order breaches international law,Powers of district court,Order of district court for police to accompany accused out of jurisdiction to obtain evidence from Defence witness,Whether police under duty to assist accused in defence

: Introduction

The respondent was charged under s 57(1)(d) of the Immigration Act (Cap 133) (`the Act`) with harbouring an immigration offender, one Yu Hong Ying (`the tenant`), a female PRC national. The tenant had leased the respondent`s premises at North Bridge Road, paying a monthly rent of $200.

The respondent claimed that one `Mr Yu`, a PRC national, had introduced him to a Singaporean, `Ah Tan`. Ah Tan, in turn, introduced the tenant to the respondent. Ah Tan averred that he was the tenant`s husband. The respondent said that Ah Tan had a pink Singapore identity card from which he took down Ah Tan`s particulars. However, he had since misplaced these details and thus could no longer locate Ah Tan. Based on Mr Yu`s introduction, the respondent honestly believed that Ah Tan was Singaporean and thus did not suspect that the tenant, `Mrs Tan` was a foreigner. The respondent wished to call Mr Yu as a witness in his defence. He was able to contact Mr Yu by telephone and the respondent claimed that Mr Yu had initially been willing to come to Singapore to give evidence, but subsequently could not do so as he had problems getting his passport renewed.

At the pre-trial conference, counsel for the respondent sought an adjournment and permission from the court for the respondent to go to China, look for Mr Yu and obtain a statement from him regarding the circumstances under which the respondent had been introduced to Ah Tan and the tenant. The application was refused.

However, on the first day of the trial before the district judge, counsel once again made the application. This time, the district judge granted the application and ordered that the hearing be adjourned. The respondent would be allowed to travel to Fujian province in China between 8 April and 21 April 2000. His trip would however be restricted to three days within which he would have to locate Mr Yu. If Mr Yu could not be found, the respondent would nevertheless have to return to Singapore. The district judge also ordered that an investigation officer, or another officer holding the rank of Sergeant or above from the same Police Division, accompany the respondent to China to enable independent verification of any conversation that would transpire between the respondent and Mr Yu.

The decision

The district judge felt that given the presumptions that operate in this area of law and the duty imposed on landlords who lease their premises to people who subsequently turn out to be immigration offenders, it was obvious that the respondent would be in no position to deny harbouring the tenant under s 2 of the Act. The only defence available to him was that he did not know, or have reason to believe, that the tenant was an immigration offender. As the crux of his defence was that Ah Tan had introduced the tenant as Mrs Tan and that the respondent had thus no reason to believe that she was a foreigner, it was critical to establish the existence of Ah Tan and to show that he was not a convenient fabrication. At present, this could only be done through Mr Yu.

As such, the district judge allowed the application. He ordered that the investigation officer or the another officer of sufficient rank follow the respondent so that there would be independent verification of what Mr Yu might say. The district judge noted that there might be questions of security relating to the police officer`s travel arrangements, but that these could be easily remedied by practical solutions. He also accepted that it was not the duty of the investigating officer to assist the respondent in preparing for his defence. Nevertheless, it was the prosecution`s duty to investigate fully and make every reasonable effort to establish all relevant and material matters which may arise in the course of the trial. The prosecution had to address all aspects which could be relevant to their case including those aspects that might counter any defence allegations.

The appeal

Although the respondent subsequently withdrew his application on 9 May 2000 to go to China with a police officer to take a statement from Mr Yu, the Public Prosecutor decided to proceed with the application for a criminal revision of the district judge`s order under s 23 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) read with s 268 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) (`CPC`) on the basis that there was something `palpably wrong in the decision that strikes at its basis as an exercise of judicial power` by the district judge: Ang Poh Chuan v PP [1996] 1 SLR 326 . The Public Prosecutor raised four issues in the...