Public Prosecutor v Tay Sheo Tang Elvilin

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 31 May 2011
• Date: 31 May 2011
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 289 of 2010
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Public Prosecutor

Plaintiff

and

Tay Sheo Tang Elvilin

Defendant

[2011] SGHC 141

VK Rajah JA

Magistrate's Appeal No 289 of 2010

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing—Sentencing—Corruption—Appeal against sentence imposed for conviction on offence of corruptly offering or giving gratification to other police officers—Whether sentence should be enhanced—Section 6 (b) Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed)

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing—Sentencing—Police officer drawing other police officers into web of corruption within police force without compromising police investigations or operations or interfering with proper administration of justice—Whether as serious as corruption involving solicitation of gratification by police officer from members of public

The respondent claimed trial to five charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) of which four were for corruptly giving gratification to four of his fellow police officers as inducement for forbearing to report him to his supervisor for misappropriating a wallet containing a stack of $50 notes and a carton of cigarettes which were found during an unscheduled raid. The remaining charge was for corruptly offering gratification to another fellow police officer for the same purpose.

He was convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment each of the five charges, with the imprisonment sentences for two of these charges to run consecutively. The Prosecution appealed against the sentence.

Held, allowing the appeal and substituting the original sentence with six months' imprisonment for each of the five charges:

(1) The district judge had failed to accord due weight to the aggravating factors surrounding the commission of the offences: at [17].

(2) Corruption within the police force was no less serious than corruption involving the solicitation of gratification by a police officer from members of the public, and both had the effect of publicly undermining the integrity of the police force. Indeed, if anything, it was even more disturbing: at [20]

(3) The fact that the respondent did not compromise any police investigations or operations or interfere with the proper administration of justice did not mean that his conduct was less odious. Here, the respondent had blatantly instigated his fellow police officers to commit several breaches of police procedure and to compromise their duties in the course of police operations. Such corrupt conduct by a police officer had to be unequivocally denounced as it would have an adverse effect on the discipline of the police force and the proper administration of justice: at [21].

(4) Lim Poh Tee v PP [2001] 1 SLR (R) 241 made it clear that stiff sentences would be imposed when police officers draw fellow officers into a web of corruption within the police force, an approach which was similar to that taken in other jurisdictions. Here, not only did the respondent misappropriate the money and cigarettes while on duty as a police officer, he took the further step of corrupting the junior officers in his team who would have regarded him as a role model and also looked to him for guidance. The serious adverse impact of the respondent's conduct in drawing his fellow police officers into this ‘web of corruption’ could not be underestimated: at [22] to [25].

(5) A stiff custodial sentence was necessary here so as to send a clear message to other serving officers that such transgressions would not be condoned and that there was no place for any form of corruption in our enforcement agencies. There was a clear pressing public interest concern in discouraging corruption within law enforcement agencies. This was an appropriate case whereby more than two sentences imposed on the respondent ought to run consecutively. These sentences reflected society's particular condemnation for such offences, which if unchecked, could corrode the integrity and high standing of the police force: at [29] and [30].

ADF v PP [2010] 1 SLR 874 (folld)

DPP v Mark Armstrong [2007] VSCA 34 (refd)

HKSAR v Lau Kwowk [2003] HKEC 674 (refd)

Lim Poh Tee v PP [2001] 1 SLR (R) 241; [2001] 1 SLR 674 (folld)

Pandiyan Thanaraju Rogers v PP [2001] 2 SLR (R) 217; [2001] 3 SLR 281 (refd)

PP v Law Aik Meng [2007] 2 SLR (R) 814; [2007] 2 SLR 814 (refd)

PP v Loqmanul Hakim bin Buang [2007] 4 SLR (R) 753; [2007] 4 SLR 753 (folld)

R v Mark Edward Bohannan [2010] EWCA Crim 2261 (refd)

Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 6 (b)

Tan Kiat Pheng and Christine Liu (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the appellant

The respondent in person.

VK Rajah JA

Introduction

1 This is an appeal by the Prosecution against sentence. The respondent, a 35-year-old police officer holding the rank of Sergeant, claimed trial to five charges under s 6 (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) (‘the Act’) . Four of these charges were for corruptly giving gratification to four of his fellow police officers as inducement for forbearing to report him to his supervisor for misappropriating a wallet containing a stack of $50 notes and a carton of cigarettes which were found during an unscheduled raid. The remaining charge was for corruptly offering gratification to another fellow police officer for the same purpose.

2 The punishment prescribed for an offence of corruptly offering or giving gratification under s 6 (b) of the Act is imprisonment of a term of up to five years, or a fine up to $100,000, or both. The appellant has no criminal antecedents.

3 A district judge found that the Prosecution had proved its case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt on the five charges. Accordingly, she convicted and sentenced the respondent to three months' imprisonment for each of the five charges, with the sentences for two charges ordered to run consecutively, making a total sentence of six months' imprisonment.

4 I allowed the Prosecution's appeal and enhanced the sentence for each of the five charges before me to six months per charge, with the imprisonment sentences for three of the charges to run consecutively to give an aggregate sentence of 18 months' imprisonment. These are my detailed grounds of decision that explain why I allowed the Prosecution's appeal.

Factual background

5 The detailed facts of this case have already been comprehensively set out by the district judge (‘the District Judge’) in...