Public Prosecutor v Shaifudin

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 06 April 2005
• Neutral Citation: [2005] SGHC 66
• Plaintiff Counsel: Christina Koh (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Published date: 07 April 2005
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Defendant Counsel: The respondent in person
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Petition for revision,Setting aside conviction procured on basis of false identity,Section 23 Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed),Sections 266(1) and 268(1) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)

6 April 2005

Yong Pung How CJ:

1 This was a petition by the Public Prosecutor to set aside the respondent’s conviction, which was procured on the basis of a false identity that the respondent had assumed. I set aside the respondent’s conviction and sentence for the reasons given below.

The facts

2 The respondent, one Raja Izzuwin, was wanted by the Singapore Civil Defence Force (“SCDF”) for being absent without leave. On 15 October 2004 at about 1.45am, during a routine police spot check at Duxton Road, the police asked the respondent for his particulars. In order to avoid detection, he assumed the identity of one “Shaifudin”. He provided the identity card number of “Shaifudin” verbally to the police, claiming he did not have his identity card in his possession.

3 Unknown to the respondent, the said “Shaifudin” was also wanted for a total of 12 parking-related summonses issued by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (“URA”) and the Housing and Development Board (“HDB”). A screening with the Divisional Operations Room by the police of the particulars given by the respondent revealed that 12 warrants of arrest had been issued against “Shaifudin” for failing to turn up in court on various dates to answer to the summonses.

4 As a result, the respondent was placed under arrest and conveyed to the Central Police Division Headquarters, and an arrest report was lodged against him. The respondent maintained his assumed identity in the lock-up and provided the identity card number and residential address of “Shaifudin” to the Charge Office staff, who recorded the information in the Charge Book. The respondent was then searched, but no identification papers were found on him.

5 At about 9.00am that same day, the respondent was produced in Court No 14 of the Subordinate Courts. The charges by the HDB and the URA against “Shaifudin” were read and explained to the respondent and he confirmed that he understood the same. The case was adjourned to 18 October 2004, when the respondent was again produced in Court No 14. The respondent admitted to the facts of the case without qualification and pleaded guilty to all 12 charges in the summonses. In mitigation, he pleaded for leniency on the basis that it was his first offence and both his parents had passed away. It was established that “Shaifudin’s” parents had indeed passed away.

6 The respondent was accordingly sentenced to pay a fine of $7,200, with 36 days’ imprisonment in default. The respondent was unable to pay the fine and was thus ordered to serve the default sentence at the Queenstown Remand Prison (“QRP”), where his true identity was discovered on 10 November 2004 to be that of Raja Izzuwin. On 11 November 2004, the respondent was arrested at the QRP for the offence of being absent without leave under s 48(1) of the Civil Defence Act (Cap 42, 2001 Rev Ed).

7 The respondent admitted that he had assumed the identity of his friend “Shaifudin” in order to avoid arrest, as he knew that he (Raja Izzuwin) was wanted by the SCDF. On 10 December 2004, the respondent pleaded guilty to the charge by the SCDF against him under s 48(1) of the Civil Defence Act and was sentenced to 11 months’ imprisonment. On 11 March 2005, the respondent also pleaded guilty to one charge of giving false information under s 182 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed), and two charges of false personation under s 205 of the Penal Code. Ten other charges of false personation under s 205 of the Penal Code were taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing, and the respondent was sentenced to a total of four months and three weeks’ imprisonment for the charges under the Penal Code.

8 The Public Prosecutor thus petitioned for the erroneous conviction recorded against the respondent in regard to the parking summonses to be set aside. At the time of the hearing before me, the respondent was serving his prison sentence for his own offence of being absent without leave, and the real “Shaifudin” was still at large.

Setting...