Public Prosecutor v Teo Hwee Choo

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Luke Tan
• Judgment Date: 24 January 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] SGDC 18
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: NS-900526-2017
• Year: 2018
• Published date: 24 April 2018
• Hearing Date: 03 January 2018
• Plaintiff Counsel: ASP Toh Hock Guan, Francis
• Defendant Counsel: The Surety in Person
• Citation: [2018] SGDC 18

District Judge Luke Tan: Introduction

This is an appeal against a forfeiture order that was made against a surety, Ms Teo Hwee Choo, who had stood bail for one Zhang Longxing (“the Accused”).

At the show cause hearing held after the Accused absconded, after hearing from the surety and the Prosecution, I had ordered that a sum of $10,000 be forfeited out of the total bail bond of $30,000.

The surety, being dissatisfied with my order, has filed an appeal. I now give the reasons for my decision.

Background Facts

On 13 October 2017, the Accused was charged in Court 26 for an offence of drug trafficking under section 5(1)(a) read with section 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Cap 185 (“MDA”) punishable under section 33(1) of the same Act. As set out in the charge sheet, the minimum punishment that he faced was 5 years’ imprisonment and 5 strokes of the cane, with the maximum prescribed punishment being 20 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. Bail was set at $30,000, with the condition that his travel document be surrendered. His next court mention date was fixed on 17 November 2017, and this was later rescheduled to 21 November 2017.

On the same day that he was charged, the surety offered to stand bail for the Accused. Following this, she signed on a bail document titled “Acknowledgement of Duties as Surety”, in which she confirmed that she was willing and able to stand as surety for the Accused. She also acknowledged that the duties of a surety had been explained to her, and that she understood, inter alia, that: it was her duty to ensure the Accused’s punctual attendance at all court dates and times, and that she would have to find out in advance all dates and times when the Accused’s attendance in court was required; she was to ensure that the Accused complied with all bail conditions, including the condition that he does not leave Singapore unless prior permission from the court was obtained; she was to remain in constant contact with the Accused and to be aware of his movements so as to ensure his compliance; if the Accused took ill on a court date, she was to ensure that the Accused consult a doctor immediately and obtain a medical certificate stating that he was not fit to attend court. Thereafter, she was to attend court on his behalf to inform the court of his condition and tender the medical certificate to the judge; and she was required to keep in daily communication with the Accused and lodge a police report within 24 hours of losing contact with him.

In the same bail document, she acknowledged that standing bail “is a serious responsibility not to be taken lightly”. She also declared that she would faithfully discharge her duties as surety and would forfeit to the State the bail sum of $30,000 should she fail in her performance of those duties.

On 21 November 2017, when the Accused was due to appear in Court 26, he failed to turn up. His counsel informed the court that the surety was present but the Accused could not be contacted. The Prosecution then applied for a warrant of arrest. A bailor to show cause hearing was also fixed on 3 January 2018 in Court 26 for the surety to appear to show cause as to why payment of the bail sum should not be enforced against her.

The law on forfeiture of bonds

Section 104 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 sets out the duties of the surety and the consequences of a breach of these duties. The provision reads:

“104(1) A surety must — (a) ensure that the released person surrenders to custody, or makes himself available for investigations or attends court on the day and at the time and place appointed for him to do so; (b) keep in daily communication with the released person and lodge a police report within 24 hours of losing contact with him; and (c) ensure that the released person is within Singapore unless the released person has been permitted by the police officer referred to in section 92 or 93 (as the case may be) or the court to leave Singapore.

(2) If the surety is in breach of any of his duties, the court may, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, forfeit the whole or any part of the amount of the bond. (3) The court may order that any amount forfeited under subsection (2) be paid by instalments.”

In the often cited case of PP v Ram Ghanshamdas Mahtani [2003] 1 SLR (R) 517 (“Ram Ghanshamdas Mahtani”), Yong Pung How CJ (as he then was) made clear the heavy responsibilities assumed by those who agree to stand bail, and of the potential grave consequences that may ensue if the surety breaches his duty. At [4]-[5], his Honour stated: “4 It has often been emphasised by the courts that the obligation which comes with standing bail for an accused is not merely a moral one, but has serious legal consequences attached with it. The bailor undertakes real risks, when an accused fails to surrender to his bail. In R v Uxbridge Justices, ex parte Heward-Mills [1983] 1 All ER 530 at 534, McCullough J quoted a statement of principle from the transcript of Donaldson LJ’s judgment in R v Knightsbridge Crown Court, ex parte Newton [1980] Crim LR 715:

“It has been said by this court, and by other courts time and again, that entering into suretyship (going bail for someone, to use the common phrase) is an extremely serious matter not to be lightly undertaken, and those who go bail must understand that, if the accused fails to surrender to his bail, it is only in the most exceptional cases that the court will be prepared to modify the prima facie position, which is that the amount for which the person concerned has stood surety will be forfeit in full.” [emphasis added]

5 The above passage was referred to by Karthigesu J (as he then was) in Loh Kim Chiang v Public Prosecutor [1992] 2 SLR(R) 48, where he discussed extensively the principles relating to forfeiture of bail. In that case, he had also referred to a passage from the judgment of Lord Denning MR in R v Southampton Justices, ex parte Green [1975] 2 All ER 1073 at 1077 to 1078:

“By what principles are the justices to be guided? They ought, I think, to consider to what extent the surety was at fault. If he or she connived at the disappearance of the accused man, or aided it or abetted it, it would be proper to forfeit the whole of the sum. If he or she was wanting in due diligence to secure his appearance, it might be proper to forfeit the whole or a substantial part of it, depending on the degree of fault. If he or she was guilty of no want of diligence and used every effort to secure the appearance of the accused man, it might be proper to remit it entirely.”

Ram Ghanshamdas Mahtani and various other authorities, were considered by Chan Seng Onn...