Public Prosecutor v Shaleni d/o Chandran

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chee Min Ping
• Judgment Date: 19 September 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] SGDC 244
• Hearing Date: 27 August 2018
• Citation: [2018] SGDC 244
• Published date: 30 October 2018
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Case No NS 839/2018, Magistrate’s Appeal No 11/2018/01
• Plaintiff Counsel: Peter Ezekiel (Peter Ezekiel & Co)
• Year: 2018

District Judge Chee Min Ping: Introduction and background

The surety, Ms Shaleni d/o Chandran (“Surety”) stood bail in the sum of $3,000 for one Chandran s/o Natesan (“the Accused”) on 14 June 2018. The Accused is the father of the Surety.

The Accused was to appear in court on 12 July 2018 to face three charges, which included two charges of parking along an unbroken double yellow line under r 22(b) of the Road Traffic Rules (Cap 276, R 20, 1999 Rev Ed) punishable under s 131(2) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed), and one charge of entering an Electronic Road Pricing Zone without a cash card in his in-vehicle unit under r 7(1)(f) of the Road Traffic (Electronic Pricing System) Rules 2015.

As the Accused did not attend court on 12 July 2018 as required, the Surety was required to show cause why the bail amount of $3,000 should not be forfeited. The Surety was represented by Mr Peter Ezekiel at the show cause hearing on 27 August 2018. At the conclusion of the hearing, the sum of $1,000 was ordered to be forfeited, and ordered to be paid forthwith.

Surety’s submissions

Counsel for the Surety submitted that the “practice” in such cases is for no more than 10% of the bail amount to be forfeited. Counsel further stated that the Surety had assumed that the Accused would attend court as required on 12 July 2018. Unfortunately, the Accused had forgot his court date, and only remembered on 18 July 2018, whereupon he surrendered as soon as possible, a fact attributable to the Surety’s efforts. Counsel for the Surety further produced a memo dated 27 July 2018 from Dr Jaspal Singh, a Consultant Psychiatrist with the Tan Tock Seng Hospital. The contents of the said memo is reproduced in full below:

This is to certify that Mr Chandran s/o Natesan… is diagnosed with Schizophrenia and is on regular follow-up with the Department of Psychological Medicine, Tan Tock Seng Hospital.

Mr Chandran has been complaining of memory difficulties for the past 2 years. This is likely due to a combination of his illness and side-effects from the medications he needs to take regularly. As such, he missed his Court appearance on 12 July 2018.

Kindly consider the above circumstances in his appeal.

Principles

Under s 104(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68 2012 Rev Ed), if a surety is in breach of any of his duties, the court “may, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, forfeit the whole or any part of the amount of the bond.” In Cher Ting Ting v PP [2017] 3 SLR 1009 (“Cher Ting Ting”) at [24], the High Court analysed the applicable case law, and synthesised the applicable principles into the following two-step framework: First, the court will consider whether the surety has shown sufficient cause for the non-forfeiture of the bond. Secondly, if the court finds that the surety has failed to show sufficient cause, the court will determine, in the exercise of its discretion, the extent to which the bond is to be forfeited.

In respect of the first step of ascertaining whether due cause for non-forfeiture has been shown, the court is to consider whether the surety had exercised reasonable due diligence in the discharge of his or her duties as a surety (see Cher Ting Ting at [28]). While the determination of whether...