Public Prosecutor v Tan Hwa Kok

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Ch'ng Lye Beng
• Judgment Date: 23 November 2010
• Neutral Citation: [2011] SGDC 318
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC 54744/2009, DAC 54745/2009, Magistrate’s Appeal No 422/2010/01-03
• Published date: 14 October 2011
• Year: 2010
• Hearing Date: 10 November 2010
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPP Benjamin Yim/ Mr Sanjeev
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Edmund Pereira (Messrs Edmund Pereira & Company)
• Citation: [2011] SGDC 318

District Judge Ch’ng Lye Beng:

The Accused, Tan Hwa Kok was on trial for two charges; the first charge DAC 54744/2009 of using criminal force on one xxx (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") under Section 354(1) of the Penal Code, Chapter 224; and the second charge DAC 54745/2009 of causing the complainant to take 'Zolpidem' which is a poison with intent to facilitate the commission of an offence under Section 328 of The Penal Code, Chapter 224. The offence facilitated was an offence under section 354(1) ie the first charge.

The alleged offences were committed in Room 449 of the Hotel Grand Central located at 22 Cavanagh Road. The Accused was the General Manager of the Hotel Grand Central. The complainant came to Singapore from Sarawak for an interview with the hotel for a prospective job at the hotel at the “invitation” of the Accused.

At the start of the trial the Prosecution proceeded on the above two charges and applied to have stood down four other charges DAC 44604, DAC 44605, DAC 38764 and DAC 446006.

The two proceeded charges during the trial before me under the Penal Code are as follows: - The Accused Tan Hwa Kok (1st Charge DAC 54744) "are charged that you on the 5th day of February 2009, at or about 11.30 am, in the Room 449 of' Hotel Grand Central of No. 22 Cavenagh Road, Singapore, did use criminal force on one ccc. female 23 years old, knowing it to be likely that you would thereby outrage her modesty, to wit. by kissing her lips and licking her private parts, und you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 354(1) of the Penal code. Chapter 224 (2008 Rev Ed.). " The Accused Tan Hwa Kok (2nd Charge DAC 54745) "are charged that you on the 5th day of February 2009, at or about 11.30 am, in Room 449 of Hotel Grand Central of No. 22 Cavenagh Road. Singapore. did cause to be taken by one, ccc, female 23 years old, “Zolpidem” which is a poison classified under the Poisons Act. with intent to facilitate the commission and you have thereby committed and offence under Section 328 of the Penal Code Chapter 224 .

The Accused person was represented by Defence Counsel when he claimed trial to both the said charges.

The Prosecution called a total of 15 witnesses during prosecution case, who were as follows: PW 1 - SSI Eddie Ho (Investigation Officer); PW2 - SSGT Tan Kim Heng (Police Photographer); PW3 - Su Hui Ping (witness); PW4 - ccc (victim); PW5 - Dr Matthew Lau (Medical Doctor, KKWH) PW6 - Dr Sohil Pothiawala Equbal (Medical Doctor, SGH) PW7 - SI Tan Hoe Ping (Duty Investigation Officer); PW8 - Insp Jin Yifeng (Duty Investigation Officer); PW9 - Low Sau Heng (CID Interpreter) PW10 - SSSGT Neo Poh Eng PW 11 - Yu Lijie (HSA analyst) PW 12 - Dr Rameshy Dalvani Mahmood (Medical Doctor, SGH) PW 13 - Alex Low Xuankai (HSA analyst) PW 14 - SSI Somasundram (Investigation Officer); PW 15 -Thilaga Valli (Starhub)

Subsequently the Prosecution called a further 2 witnesses to explain the key cards used for room 449 and exhibit D14 which was the Locklink Transfer Lock Events record tendered by the Accused after the Defence had closed their case without calling them. These witnesses are: PW 16 - George King Lian Thing (Former Front Office Manager, Hotel Grand Central) PW 17 - Clement Chia Chin Meng (ASSA Abloy Hospitality Pte Ltd)

At the close of the Prosecution's case, there was no submission of no case to answer from the Defence. In any case I found that the Prosecution had made out a prima facie case against the accused if un-rebutted would warrant the accused’s conviction of both the charges preferred against him. I therefore called for the accused to give his defence and administered the prerequisite warning on him. Having consulted is counsel he elected to do so from the witness stand.

The Defence called 5 witnesses, who were as follows: - DW 1- Tan Hwa Kok (The Accused); DW2- Jason Chen Ling Ling (Room Steward, Hotel Grand Central); DW3- Tracey Lim Soh Cheng (Manager, Gold Coast Seafood Restaurant); DW4- Lirn Choon Kee Peter (Freelance Locks Installer) DW5 - Leong Chee Man (Maintenance Supervisor, Hotel Grand Central)

At the close of the defence case and after having examined all the testimonies and evidence produced before me and after having heard and considered submissions from both prosecution and defence, I found that the prosecution had proven their case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused on both the charges. Therefore I found the accused guilty and convicted him of both charges.

For the six charges which were stood down (ie 3 MOM charges and 3 PCA charges) at the start of the trial, the accused further pleaded guilty to 2 PCA charges and 2 MOM charges with the prosecution applying for the remaining two charges (one MOM charge and one PCA charges) to be taken into consideration for sentencing.

Having considered the Prosecution’s submission/address on sentence and the defence mitigation and address on sentence, I sentenced the accused as follows: Charges Convicted after trial: Penal Code charges DAC 54744 - 13 months imprisonment and 3 strokes. DAC 54745 - 26 months imprisonment and 3 strokes Charges Convicted after Plea of Guilt (stood down charges): PCA charges DAC 387612/09/09 – Fine $4,000 in default 4 weeks. Penalty $500 in default 5 days. DAC 38763 – 4 weeks imprisonment. MOM charges DAC 44604 – Fine $7,200 (30 months x $240), in default 7 weeks imprisonment. DAC 44605 – Fine $7,200 (30 months x $240), in default 7 weeks imprisonment. Imprisonment sentences in DAC 54745 and DAC 38763 to run consecutively and concurrently with that in DAC 54744. TIC DAC 38764 and DAC 446006. Total imprisonment: 26 months and 4 week imprisonment. Total strokes: 6 strokes. Total fines and penalty: $18,900 in default 18 week and 5 days

The accused is dissatisfied with the order of conviction and sentence meted for the two charges at the trial and has since appealed against both orders for DAC 54744 and DAC 54745.

Prosecution’s Case

The prosecution's case is based on the testimonies of complainant and a total of 16 other witnesses. Briefly the gists of their testimonies are as follows:

PWI, SSI Eddie Ho, was the investigation officer. He testified that he had investigated this case and ended up prosecuting the accused with the current two charges with the complainant being the alleged victim.

PW2, SSgt Tan Kim Heng, is the police photographer. He testified that he had taken a total of 14 photographs of the scene of crime (P2-P15) under the direction from the investigating officer.

PW3, Winnie Su Hui Ping ("Winnie"), is a friend of both the complainant and the accused. She testified that she had met the accused while working at a restaurant. They both eventually got involved in an extra-marital affair. He even paid her for sex. She also testified that she had introduced the complainant to the accused as the complainant was looking for a job in Singapore. When the complainant arrived in Singapore for the job interview, she spent some time with the complainant just before the said interview. She had arrived at the scene of crime shortly after the commission of the two offences. She testified that the complainant was unsteady on her feet and complaining of headaches. Winnie also testified about the reaction of the complainant in the room 449 and at the seafood restaurant after the commission of the offences.

PW4, ccc, is the complainant (“complainant”). She testified that she had informed Winnie that she was looking for a job in Singapore. Through Winnie, she had met the accused. She flew into Singapore for a job interview at Hotel Grand Central on 3 February 2009. Upon her arrival, she was received by the accused. After checking into Hotel Grand Central, the accused had taken her out for supper at a hawker centre; and later brought her to a pub for drinks. She noticed some powdery substance in her drink and questioned the accused whether her drink was spiked to which the accused said no. The following morning on 4 February 2009, the accused brought her out for food. She later met Winnie; and they were joined by a friend of Winnie. On that same afternoon, the complainant had her job interview. In the evening, she went out with a friend for dinner; and they were later joined by the accused.

On the second morning on 5 February 2009, the complainant woke up with a sore-throat; and declined to meet the accused for food. The accused later brought some herbal tea and gave it to her at the entrance to her hotel room. The complainant did not let the accused into her room. After drinking the herbal tea, the complainant became very drowsy and went to sleep on the bed. She was later awakened when the accused [who had somehow entered her room] tried to lift her up from her sleeping position on the bed. The accused tried to take off her t-shirt but failed due to her resistance. He, however, managed to pull down her shorts and panty; and licked her private parts. He also managed to kiss her on her lips and other parts of her body. She did not reciprocate any of the accused's sexual advances. Though she tried to resist the accused's sexual advances, she failed due to a lack of body strength brought on by the spiked herbal tea.

The complainant also testified that Winnie joined her in her room shortly after the commission of the two offences. They later went down to have food at a sea-food restaurant within the hotel. The complainant ate very little if at all as she did not have much of an appetite. While at the restaurant, the complainant questioned the accused how he had entered her room earlier in the day when she was sleeping. The accused answered that he had gotten a hotel staff to help him gain access to her room. When the complainant returned to her room from the restaurant, she noticed that the latch-lock system in her room was damaged.

The complainant further...