Public Prosecutor v Tan Hock Khin

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Soh Tze Bian
• Judgment Date: 20 June 2011
• Neutral Citation: [2011] SGDC 198
• Hearing Date: 23 March 2011,23 February 2011
• Citation: [2011] SGDC 198
• Published date: 24 June 2011
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: PSM 2989/2010, Magistrate’s Appeal No. 147/2011/01
• Plaintiff Counsel: Assistant Public Prosecutor, Ms Lim Yu Hui
• Year: 2011

District Judge Soh Tze Bian:

On 23 Feb 11, the accused person (AP), male/39 years old, claimed trial to an amended charge under section 13A(l)(a) of the Miscellaneous Offences(Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Cap 184) (in exhibit ‘C1’) that he, on the 12th day of September 2010, at or about 12.56 am, at the 7-11 outlet located at 321 Geylang Road, Singapore, which is a public place, with intent to cause alarm to Jow Eng Lan, did use threatening behaviour towards the said Jow Eng Lan (‘the victim’), to wit, by pointing his finger repeatedly and shouting at her, thereby causing alarm to the said Jow Eng Lan. This was an offence which on conviction is punishable under section 13A(l)(a) of the Miscellaneous Offences(Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Cap 184) with a fine not exceeding $5000.

After the victim had given her evidence on 23 Feb 11 and when the trial resumed on 23 Mar 11, the prosecution tendered a re-amended charge and applied to amend the existing charge in exhibit ‘C1’ pursuant to section 163(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 68, 1985 Edition (‘CPC’) which provides that "any court may alter any charge or frame a new charge, whether in substitution for or in addition to an existing charge at any time before judgment is given". In the re-amended charge, the time was amended from ’12.56’ am to ‘12.59am’; the word ’repeatedly’ after the word’ finger’ was deleted; and the word ’shouting’ was deleted and replaced by the words ’raising your voice’. Pursuant to section 163(1) of the CPC, I allowed the amendments and as required by sections 163(2) and 164(1) of the CPC, the re-amended charge in exhibit ‘C1A’ was read by an interpreter to the AP in Mandarin who maintained his earlier plea of not guilty and claimed trial to the re- amended charge that he, on the 12th day of September 2010, at or about 12.59 am, at the 7-11 outlet located at 321 Geylang Road, Singapore, which is a public place, with intent to cause alarm to Jow Eng Lan, did use threatening behaviour towards the said Jow Eng Lan, to wit, by pointing his finger and raising his voice at her, thereby causing alarm to the said Jow Eng Lan.”

At the end of the trial on 23 Mar 11, I reserved judgement to consider the evidence and submissions to be presented by the AP and the prosecution. The AP did not file and serve his written submissions by 29 April 11 (as directed by the Court) which upon his failure to comply was later extended by the Court to 20 May 11 and the AP again failed to comply. The prosecution filed and served its written submissions on the AP by registered mail on 7 June 11 after attempts to serve on the AP (including a house visit by the Investigating Officer) on 31 May 11 (as directed by the Court) were unsuccessful. On 20 June 11, I convicted the AP of the re-amended charge (in exhibit ‘C1A’) preferred against him.

The Case for the Prosecution

The prosecution called a total of 4 witnesses to the stand. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses are set out below.

Testimony of PW1-- Ang Wee Seng

PW1 testified during his examination in chief that he holds the position of manager of operations in Cistronics Pte Ltd. He has been working in the company for 6 years. The Certificate of computer output under section 35(6) of the Evidence Act, Cap 97, which was made and signed by PW1 was tendered by the prosecution through PW1 and admitted and marked as exhibit ‘P1’. The DVD of the CCTV footages which was copied by PW1’s company’s technician was tendered by the prosecution through PW1 and admitted and marked as exhibit ‘P2’. PW1 testified that the DVD in exhibit ‘P2’contained the CCTV footages of a Digital Video Recorder placed at a 7-11 store No. 190 which is located at 321 Geylang Road of timing on 12 Sep 10 at 0055 hours to 0155 hours. PW1’s company was told by the 7-11 store manager to copy the CCTV footages and a technician was assigned to the site to copy the CCTV footages into a DVD. Initially, PW1 did not know for what purpose the DVD in exhibit ‘P2’ was to be used for, but later found out that it was to be used for a threatening case. He handed the DVD in exhibit ‘P2’ to the 7-11 store manager, one Mr Ong. The AP did not cross-examine PW1.

Testimony of PW2-- Jerald Tan Jin Rui

PW2 testified during his examination in chief that he holds the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) currently attached to the investigation branch of Bedok Police Division. He has been in the police force for about 5+ years. He became the Investigation Officer (IO) for this case on 20 Sep 10 when he was directed to investigate this case. In the course of his police investigations, he interviewed the victim (PW3) and the complainant (PW4) and recorded statements from them. He also seized the CCTV footages from the 7-11 store. He also interviewed the AP and recorded his statement. The First Information Report (FIR) dated 12 Sep 10 was tendered by the prosecution through PW2 and admitted and marked as exhibit ‘P3’. PW2 stated that exhibit ‘P3’ is the FIR and in the course of his police investigations, he had used the information in exhibit ‘P3’ as the foundation for his investigations. The police report dated 5 Dec 10 was tendered by the prosecution through PW2 and admitted and marked as exhibit ‘P4’. PW2 told the Court that exhibit ‘P4’ is the police service report documenting the seizure of the CCTV footages contained in a DVD in exhibit ‘P2’. He had seized the CCTV footages in the DVD in exhibit ‘P2’ from the 7-11 store manager, one Mr Ong Kian Lee. He made the document in exhibit ‘P4’ after he had seized the CCTV footages contained in a DVD in exhibit ‘P2’. When referred to exhibit ‘P2’, he confirmed that this was the DVD containing the CCTV footages which he had seized from Mr Ong. When referred to the CCTV footages which were played on screen in open court by the prosecution, PW2 testified as follows: The person in red in the CCTV footages is the victim (PW3) in this case He identified the AP in the CCTV footages as the person wearing a black T-shirt and Khaki Bermuda. He identified the complainant (PW4) in the CCTV footages as the person wearing the red singlet with white/black stripes. The AP, the victim (PW3) and the complainant (PW4) can be clearly seen in the CCTV footages.

The 14 CCTV images taken from the CCTV footages were tendered by the prosecution through PW2 and admitted and marked as exhibits ‘‘P5-1’ to ‘P5-14’. PW2 told the Court during his examination in chief that he had obtained the 14 CCTV images in exhibits ‘P5-1’ to ‘P5-14’ by taking screen shots from the CCTV footages in the DVD in exhibit ‘P2’ which he had seized from the 7-11 store manager. The address of the place where the incident on 12 Sep 10 took place was 321, Geylang Road. When referred to exhibits ‘P5-1’ to ‘P5-14’, PW2 stated as follows; Exhibit ‘P5-1’ showed the AP paying for his purchases. He identified the AP as the person who was in Court sitting at the table. Exhibit ‘P5-2’ showed the victim (PW3) placing the AP’s change at the cashier’s counter. No receipt was given to the AP in exhibit ‘P5-2’. Exhibit ‘P5-3’ showed clearly the change given to the AP by the victim (PW3) and no receipt was on the table. Exhibit ‘P5-4’ showed the AP leaving the store after taking his change and the victim (PW3) was putting money collected into the cash register. Exhibit ‘P5-5’ showed the AP coming back to the store a short while later. The victim (PW3) appeared to be attending to another customer’s purchase as she was seen holding a bottle drink in her left hand. Exhibit ‘P5-6’ showed the AP talking to the complainant (PW4) who was seated. Exhibit ‘P5-7’ showed the AP talking to the victim (PW3). Exhibit ‘P5-8’ showed the AP checking his plastic bag for his receipt and the victim (PW3) was attending to other customers. Exhibit ‘P5-9’ showed the victim (PW3) bending over to look for the AP’s receipt in the waste paper basket on the floor which was covered by her. The AP appeared to be checking his plastic bag for his receipt. The lag time between exhibits ‘P5-8’ and ‘P5-9’ was 10 seconds as seen from the timings in the CCTV images in exhibits ‘P5-8’ and ‘P5-9’. Exhibit ‘P5-10’ showed the AP standing and waiting for the victim (PW3) to give to him his receipt. The victim (PW3) appeared to be holding in her left hand what seemed to be the AP’s receipt. Exhibit ‘P5-11’ showed the victim (PW3) extending her right hand towards the AP to hand over his receipt to him. Exhibit ‘P5-12’ showed the victim (PW3) passing the receipt to the AP with her right hand. The AP was extending his left hand towards the victim (PW3) to take the receipt from her. Exhibit ‘P5-13’ showed the AP moving closer towards the victim (PW3) and standing immediately behind and was blocked by the cash register. The victim (PW3) was busy with other customers. Exhibit ‘P5-14’ showed the AP’s left index finger pointing at the victim (PW3) who was alone behind the cashier’s counter. The complainant (PW4) was seated on the left side. In the CCTV image in exhibit ‘P5-6’. the complainant (PW4) seen talking to the AP. PW2 stated that the complainant (PW4) told him during his investigations that the AP had asked him for the telephone number to call to make complaints to the management of 7-11.

During cross examination by the AP, PW2 was referred to the various exhibits in exhibits ‘P5-1’ to ‘P5-14’ and told the Court as follows: Exhibit ‘P5-1’ showed the AP paying for his purchases. Exhibit ‘P5-2’ showed the victim (PW3) placing the AP’s change at the cashier’s counter. No receipt appeared in exhibit ‘P5-2’. Exhibit ‘P5-7’ showed the AP talking to the victim (PW3) and asking for his receipt based on the victim’s (PW3) account given to him during his police investigations. Exhibit ‘P5-8’ showed the AP checking his plastic bag for his receipt and the victim (PW3) was attending to other customers. Exhibit ‘P5-10’ showed the AP...