Public Prosecutor v Tan Chi (Chen Qi) and another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Edgar Foo
• Judgment Date: 27 October 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] SGDC 240
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Arrest Case No. 913189 of 2019 and 1 Other, Magistrate’s Appeals No. 9188-2021-01 and 9187-2021-01
• Year: 2021
• Published date: 09 November 2021
• Hearing Date: 06 October 2020,07 October 2020,30 July 2021,24 August 2021,24 March 2021,23 March 2021,05 October 2020
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPP Goh Yong Ngee (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Chong Soon Pong Adrian (Low Yeap Toh & Goon LLP),Paul (Cross Street Chambers)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Offences,Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act,Section 34(1),Evidence,Interpretation presumptions,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing,Principles
• Citation: [2021] SGDC 240

District Judge Edgar Foo: Introduction

This was a joint trial involving 2 co-accused persons, namely Tan Chi (Chen Qi) (hereinafter called “B1”) and Mariappa s/o Miniyadi (hereinafter called “B2”). Both the accused persons had claimed trial to their respective charges:

DAC 913189-2019 (Amended)

You, B1,… are charged that you, on the 12th day of July 2018 at about 9.50 a.m., at the coffee shop located at Blk 449 Clementi Avenue 3, Singapore, being a person subject to Police Supervision pursuant to an Order made by the Minister for Home Affairs under Section 32 of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Chapter 67, 2000 Rev. Ed), vide Police Supervision Order MHA (CL) 0031/2012 dated 5 December 2017, did consort with one Muhammad Yusri Bin Mohd Bisri, (NRIC No: XXX) and one Mariappa S/O Miniyadi (NRIC No: XXX), both of whom are persons subject to supervision under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Chapter 67, 2000 Rev. Ed), without the permission of the commander of the police division in which you reside, namely the Commander of Clementi Division, and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 34 (1) and punishable under Section 34(2) of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Chapter 67, 2000 Rev. Ed).

DAC 913188-2019 (Amended)

You, B2,… are charged that you, on the 12th day of July 2018 at about 9.50 a.m., at the coffee shop located at Blk 449 Clementi Avenue 3, Singapore, being a person subject to Police Supervision pursuant to an Order made by the Minister for Home Affairs under Sections 32 of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Chapter 67, 2000 Rev. Ed), vide Police Supervision Order MHA (CL) 004/2011 dated 1 March 2017, did consort with one Muhammad Yusri Bin Mohd Bisri, (NRIC No: XXX) and one Tan Chi (Chen Qi) (NRIC No: XXX), both of whom are persons subject to supervision under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Chapter 67, 2000 Rev. Ed), without the permission of the commander of the police division in which you reside, namely the Commander of Clementi Division, and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 34 (1) and punishable under Section 34(2) of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Chapter 67, 2000 Rev. Ed).

The punishment prescribed under section 34(2) of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Chapter 67, 2000 Rev. Ed.) was imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and not more than 3 years.

At the conclusion of the trial on 30 July 2021. I found both the accused persons guilty and convicted them of their respective charges. On 24 August 2021, after considering the Prosecution’s submission on sentence and the Defences’ mitigation pleas, I imposed a sentence of 13 months’ imprisonment on each of the accused persons.

Both the accused persons, being dissatisfied with my decisions, had filed their Notice of Appeal against their convictions and sentences. I hereby set out my reasons for the convictions and sentences.

Parties’ evidence and exhibits Prosecution’s evidence and exhibits

The Prosecution had called a total of 7 witnesses in their case against both the accused persons:

No.	Witness	Role	Marking given to witness
1	SSSGT Shawn Yeo Soon Kiang	Supervising officer for both the accused persons	PW1
2	SI Mark Lee Seow Chye	Officer who recorded B1’s statement	PW2
3	SSGT Nor Aizat Bin Hamid	Officer who recorded B2’s statement	PW3
4	Muhammad Yusri Bin Mohd Bisri	Co-accused	PW4
5	SI Chan Tuck Seng	Police officer who served the Police Supervision Order on B2	PW5
6	Jeya Letchumi d/o Bala Subramaniam	Interpreter who interpreted the Police Supervision Order to B2	PW6
7	SI Poo Tze Chiang	Investigation Officer	PW7

In addition to the 7 witnesses, the Prosecution had also tendered a total of 21 exhibits in support of their case against both the accused persons:

No.	Exhibit	Marking given to exhibit
1	Agreed Statement of Facts	AS1
2	Police Supervision Order MHA (CL) 0031/2012 in respect of B1	P1
3	Police Supervision Order MHA (CL) 0020/2011 in respect of Muhammad Yusri Bin Mohd Bisri	P2
4	Police Supervision Order MHA (CL) 0004/2011 in respect of B2	P3
5	Acknowledgment of Police Supervision Order MHA (CL) 0031/2012 in respect of B1 dated 5 December 2017	P4
6	Acknowledgment of Police Supervision Order MHA (CL) 0004/2011 in respect of B2 dated 1 March 2017	P5
7	Police Report No. A/20180712/2087 lodged on 12 July 2018 at 1.40 pm by PW1	P6
8	B1’s statement recorded under Section 23 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) on 25 April 2019 at 10.50 am by PW7	P7
9	B2’s statement recorded under Section 23 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) on 25 April 2019 at 11.40 am by PW7	P8
10	DAC 913190-2019 for FM(PG) in respect of Mohammad Yusri Bin Mohd Bisri	P9
11	Statement of Facts for FM(PG) in respect of Mohammad Yusri Bin Mohd Bisri	P10
12	Certificate under Section 45A Evidence Act in relation to DAC 913190-2019 in respect of Mohammad Yusri Bin Mohd Bisri	P11
13	Photograph of accused persons at Blk 449 Clementi Ave 2	P12
14	Sketch plan by PW1 showing the route taken by the 3 co-accused when they left Clementi Police Division	P13
15	2 maps showing the area between Clementi Police Division and Clementi MRT	P14
16	Sketch plan by PW1 showing the layout of Blk 447 Clementi Ave 3	P15
17	Sketch plan by PW1 showing the positions of the 3 co-accused as per B1’s instruction	P16
18	Statement of B1 recorded under Section 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) on 12 July 2018 at 12.25 pm by PW2	P17
19	Statement of B2 recorded under Section 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) on 12 July 2018 at 12.25 pm by PW3	P18
20	Consequences of Contravening the Restrictions in a Police Supervision Order and the Restrictions imposed under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act	P19
21	PW4’s markings on Exhibit P15	P20

The Prosecution’s evidence could be summarised as follows:-

Agreed Statement of Facts (Exhibit AS1)

At the start of the trial, the Prosecution had sought to tender an Agreed Statement of Facts (Exhibit AS1) in order to narrow the issues between the parties. Both defence counsels also confirmed that they had no objection to Exhibit AS1 being tendered.

The parties had agreed to the following facts: At the material time, B1 was subject to police supervision pursuant to Orders made by the Minister of Home Affairs under Section 32 of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Chapter 67) (“CLTPA”) vide Police Supervision Order MHA (CL) 0031/2012 dated 5 December 2017¹; and B2 was also subject to police supervision pursuant to an Order made by the Minister of Home Affairs under Section 32 of the CLTPA vide Police Supervision Order MHA (CL) 004/2011 dated 1 March 2017². The involved party was PW4. At the material time, PW4 was also subject to police supervision pursuant to an Order made by the Minister of Home Affairs under Section 32 of the CLTPA vide Police Supervision Order MHA (CL) 0020/2010 dated 1 September 2016³. The complainant was PW1. On 12 July 2018, PW1 was the reporting officer at Clementi Police Division and his duty was to oversee the reporting of police supervisees at Clementi Police Division. The accuracy and admissibility of Exhibits P1, P2 and P3 were not disputed by B1 or B2. All the restrictions imposed on B1 and B2 as part of the Police Supervision were explained to them on issuance of their respective Police Supervision Orders. After the restrictions under the Police Supervision Order were explained to them, B1 and B2 had acknowledged that they understood the restrictions as explained and they also signed the Acknowledgement of Supervision Order forms bearing reference numbers CIDF/5/41559 and CIDF/5/41077 respectively. The Acknowledgement of Supervision Order forms bearing reference number CIDF/5/41559 and CIDF/5/41077 were marked as Exhibit P4 and Exhibit P5 respectively. The accuracy and admissibility of Exhibits P4 and P5 were not disputed by B1 or B2. Facts relating to the proceeded charges On 12 July 2018 at about 9 a.m., B1, B2 and PW4 were at Clementi Police Division for their mandatory reporting. After the reporting, at around 9.30 am, PW1 escorted the three of them out of Clementi Police Division. PW1 had also noted that the three of them had left in different directions. Thereafter, en route to Clementi MRT station, B1 approached PW4 and B2 and asked them how to apply for an extension of the time curfew. B1explained that his father had been hospitalized after suffering a stroke and that he needed to work longer hours to pay for the hospital bills. The three of them then agreed to go to the coffee shop located at Block 449 Clementi Avenue 3, Singapore to have breakfast together and talk about B1’s problems. The three of them did not seek the permission of the Commander of the Clementi Police Division to consort or habitually associate with one another. The three of them told PW1 that they were aware that they were not supposed to be seen together and claimed that they were only having breakfast. PW1 then told the three of them to report to the Secret Societies Branch (“SSB”) at Police Cantonment Complex at 391 New Bridge Road, Singapore. Following the incident, PW1 headed back to SSB, where he lodged the first information report bearing report no. A/20180712/2087 lodged on 12 July 2018 at 1.40 pm (Exhibit P6). The accuracy and admissibility of Exhibit P6 was not disputed by B1 or B2. The three of them also went back to...