Public Prosecutor v Sim Gim Tiong

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Aedit Abdullah
• Judgment Date: 04 November 2004
• Neutral Citation: [2004] SGDC 273
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ms Ho Su Lyn (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Published date: 09 November 2004
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Denis Tan (Toh Tan and Partners)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Section 45(a) Telecommunications Act [Cap.323]

4 November 2004

District Judge Aedit Abdullah:

1. The Accused pleaded guilty to and was convicted of four charges under s 45(a) of the Telecommunications Act of transmitting false messages containing references to the presence of a bomb. He was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment on each of the four charges, with two sentences running consecutively and two concurrently. Four other charges were taken into consideration for sentencing. He was sentenced to a total of 60 months’ imprisonment. He now appeals against the sentences imposed.

2. The first proceeded charge, DAC 19380 of 2004 reads as follows:

You, Sim Gim Tiong, Male, 30 years, NRIC S7336132Z, are charged that you on 23 April 2004, at or about 7.57 pm, did transmit a message which you knew to be false, to wit, by making a ‘999’ call to the Combined Operations Room at the Singapore Changi Airport Terminal 2 and saying the following words to Police Sergeant Teng Tan Wen, “Is this the Police station? I’ve already spoken up. I advise you the bomb in the airport has been shifted somewhere else. It doesn’t matter. I just want you to know that there is a bomb in SQ flying to Jakarta. If you all don’t wanna cancel it, bear the consequences. Goodbye.” and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 45(a) of the Telecommunications Act, Cap 323.

The other 3 charges proceeded with were similar, concerning calls at 8.45 pm, 8.59 pm and 9.11 pm.

The Facts

3. The statement of facts tendered by the prosecution, and admitted by the Accused, reads in material portions as follows:

3. … on 23 April 2004 at about 7.57 pm, the accused made a ‘999’ call to the Combined Operations Room (COR) at Singapore Changi Airport Terminal 2, and said the following words to W1 Police Sergeant Teng Tan Wan:

“Is this the Police Station? I’ve already spoken up. I advise you the bomb in the airport has been shifted somewhere else. It doesn’t matter. I just want you to know that there is a bomb in SQ flying to Jakarta. If you all don’t wanna cancel it, bear the consequences. Goodbye.

4. On the same day at about 8.45 pm, the accused made a “999” call to the Combined Operations Room (COR) at Singapore Changi Airport Terminal 2, and said the following words to W2 Police Sergeant Loh Tong Meng:

“If you think this is a prank call SQ168 Jakarta, you better be careful. I have already rung 5 times. If you don’t heed my advice, you better bear the consequences. I already told you by 8.30, you never cancel the flight you bear the consequences.

5. On the same day at about 8.59 pm, the accused made a ‘999’ call to the Combined Operations Room (COR) at Singapore Changi Airport terminal 2, and said the following words to W3 Police Sergeant Leong Keng Pei:

“I just rang up seven times warning you about SQ 168 from Singapore to Jakarta. If you are not going to cancel the flight, then bear the consequences. I am warning you the last time. If you are not going to cancel the flight departure at 9.15, just bear the consequences.”

6. On the same day at about 9.11 pm, the accused made a “999” call to the Combined Operations Room (COR) at Singapore Changi Airport Terminal 2, and said the following words to W4 Police Staff Sergeant Lim Wah Kok:

“9.15 pm, SQ 168 flight to Jakarta. There is a bomb on it. This is the 8^th call I’ve made.”

7. At about 10.14 pm, the accused was arrested at a public phone located outside ‘Econ Minimart’ at Blk 554 Ang Mo Kio Ave 10, #01-2052.

8. The accused had transmitted the above messages, knowing all of them to be false, with the intention of delaying Singapore Airlines flight SQ 168 from Singapore to Jakarta.

The Mitigation Plea

4. The mitigation on behalf of the Accused, who had no criminal record, relied primarily on his medical condition. The Accused was found by Dr Y C Lim, a Consultant Psychiatrist, with Raffles Hospital, and a Visiting Consultant at SGH and IMH, to have suffered from depression and obsessive compulsive disorder. Dr Lim in his report, stated that it was evident that the Accused’s acts were not motivated by mischief but rather desperation accompanied by a compulsion to repeat the action. It was said that the Accused could not resist repeating his actions, though he knew his behaviour was senseless.

5. Counsel also submitted that there was only one transaction in essence. It was said that subsequent calls after the first would not have caused further or additional alarm. It was further contended that the calls covered by charges 4 and 5 (DAC 19381 & 19382) could only be interpreted in the context of earlier calls, since these calls did not themselves mention a bomb. As the last two calls were made just as the flight was about to finally take off, these calls were evidently not taken seriously.

6. Counsel emphasised that the Accused had no dishonest intention; he had not intended to make a crank call, but only to keep the companionship of his brother in law. This distinguished the present case from Ong Teck Geng v PP MA 381 of 1993 in which the accused had sought to mislead the police through his false call.

7. As regards the delay caused by these calls, Counsel pointed to the difference in the circumstances between the present case different from Elangowan s/o Sankaradass v PP MA 237 of 1997, in which a false call led to a delay of 7 hours.

8. Counsel argued that a deterrent sentence was not called for in the present case. It was argued that deterrence must either be in relation to the Accused specifically or generally. Specific deterrence was not warranted here as the Accused would not repeat the offence. Neither was general deterrence as there was no indication of prevalence oft his type of offence.

9. Counsel relied on the case of PP v Boon Yu Kai John in support of the contention that all these acts were really one, and should therefore be subject to the one transaction rule.

10. Counsel also generally relied on general sentencing principles, referring to Chapter 3 of Sentencing Practice in the Subordinate Courts.

Prosecution’s submissions

11. The Prosecution referred to Sentencing Practice in the Subordinate Courts, and the cases of Elangowan and PP v Ramiahthevar Thevadas (not reported). In addition, a number of aggravating factors were cited, in support of a submission for the imposition of a deterrent sentence. It was pointed out that the accused was only arrested after the last call because police officers managed to arrest him at the phone booth from where he had made the call. It was said that if the Accused had not been apprehended then, he could have continued making more calls and not been apprehended at all.

12. The Prosecution contended that the motivation of the Accused was also frivolous, namely to spend more time with someone who was due to depart on the flight.

13. The actions of the accused were more alarming in these times. The threats made rendered a check necessary on all checked-in baggage, requiring these to be unloaded , and subjected to 100% x-ray screening and random physical and explosive sniffer checks. The flight was delayed for 55 minutes.

The consequences of such false messages were highlighted, namely the wasted recourses, the compromise in the operational readiness of the authorities, the detriment to the national interest and the effect on Singapore’s reputation as an international air hub.

14. In oral submissions, the Prosecution pressed the argument that severe alarm had been caused, and checks had to be made following the calls; the Prosecution rejected the defence position that the subsequent calls made by the accused were not taken seriously, or that the last calls made just before the eventual departure of the flight had no effect. The Prosecution also submitted that contrary to the defence’s argument that the frequency of calls meant that the threat would not be taken seriously, the frequency meant that in fact the threat was taken more seriously.

15. PP v Boon Yu Kai John was distinguished by the prosecution as that case only involved 1 charge.

16. The Prosecution pressed for a substantial sentence of imprisonment to send a strong signal that such acts would not be condoned.

The Sentence Passed

17. The Court imposed a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment on each of the four charges proceeded with; two of the sentences were ordered to run consecutively, giving a total of 60 months’ imprisonment.

The nature of the offence

18. The charges against the Accused were for offences under s 45(a) Telecommunications Act. That section prescribes punishment of a fine of up to $50,000 or imprisonment of up to 7 years or both. Clearly, the commission of an offence under s 46 is a serious criminal act where the false messages transmitted contain references to the presence of bombs. The seriousness of offences under s 46(a) is further heightened in these times, where there is a need for constant vigilance to guard against terrorist attacks of the kind that has beset our neighbours, and which have been threatened against targets and persons within Singapore.

19. The transmission or indeed the very making of false bomb threats should attract heavy punishment, notwithstanding that no physical harm results to persons or property. Until such time as the authorities are able to determine that the threat is false, any threat made has to be treated as genuine. The immediate response to a threat being made would be to take precautions, which could include evacuation and checks. These create not merely inconvenience but cause great disruption. Resources, whether manpower, equipment or time, and perhaps most importantly, attention, are expended in investigating false bomb threats. The consumption of these resources in responding to false threats is inefficient and wasteful. The attention diverted to responding to false threats is attention removed from guarding against actual ones.

20. Aside from the waste of resources or diversion of attention, false bomb threats, or hoaxes, are despicable...