Sarjit Singh s/o Mehar Singh v Public Prosecutor

• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 18 September 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] SGHC 217
• Citation: [2002] SGHC 217
• Defendant Counsel: Tai Wei Shyong (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Petitioner in person
• Date: 18 September 2002
• Docket Number: Criminal Revision No 15 of 2002
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether such offence calls for custodial sentence of deterrent nature,Jurisdiction,Courts and Jurisdiction,Whether and when court to exercise revisionary powers,Whether petitioner guilty of offence charged,Offences,Whether entrustment of task of collecting moneys on client's behalf constitutes entrustment of property,Criminal breach of trust by lawyer,Whether lawyers fall under purview of s 409 Penal Code,Entrustment of property,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,s 409 Penal Code (Cap 224),Aggravating circumstances,Distinction between roles of revisionary and appellate court,Whether sentence manifestly inadequate,Criminal Law,Sentencing

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

Introduction

This petition for revision arose out of the judgment of district judge Audrey Lim in which she convicted the petitioner on a charge of criminal breach of trust under s 409 of the Penal Code for misappropriating a sum of $4,815.24 belonging to his client. The petitioner was sentenced to seven months imprisonment.

The facts

The undisputed facts

2 The petitioner was at the material time an advocate and solicitor and the sole proprietor of Sarjit Singh & Co. In early November 1998, Muhammed Bin Abdul Latiff (‘Latiff’) approached the petitioner seeking to claim unpaid emoluments amounting to $4,815.24 from his ex-employer, Eurofibre Engineering Pte Ltd (‘Eurofibre’).

3 The petitioner agreed to act for Latiff and was paid $200 by cheque on 9 November 1998 to write a letter of demand which was duly sent to Eurofibre. The petitioner was subsequently paid an additional $500, also by cheque, to issue a writ against Eurofibre on 17 November 1998.

4 Pursuant to the petitioner’s letter of demand dated 10 November 1998, Eurofibre sent a cheque dated 16 November 1998 to the petitioner’s firm which the petitioner banked into his client’s account around 23 November 1998. The monies were subsequently withdrawn by the petitioner in stages between 25 November 1998 and early January 1999.

5 The petitioner did not inform Latiff that Eurofibre had paid the $4,815.24 until about July 2001 after the police had commenced their investigations. Thereafter the petitioner and Latiff met at Peninsula Plaza and the petitioner paid Latiff a sum of $5,515.24 being of the aggregate of $4,815.24, $200 and $500. At this meeting, Latiff had, unknown to the petitioner, taped the entire conversation.

The petitioner’s version of the facts

6 It is appropriate at this juncture to set out the petitioner’s version of the facts as they mapped out his defence to the charge.

7 The petitioner had rendered advice not just for Latiff’s claim against Eurofibre, but also for Latiff’s plans to set up a competing business against Eurofibre as well as on an unrelated security matter. He had also rendered advice in relation to Junaidei, a business partner of Latiff who was facing a claim from Eurofibre.

8 Subsequently, he had instructed his wife, Geetha, to send a bill of costs of $5,750 to Latiff for the advice rendered. She had forgotten to do so because they were beset with personal and family problems. Thinking that Geetha had already sent the bill of costs to Latiff, the petitioner withdrew the $4,815.24 from the client’s account to set off his legal costs.

9 Subsequently, the petitioner discovered that his wife had not sent the amended bill of costs to Latiff. He decided to return the money to Latiff as it was unfair and wrong to withdraw the money from the client’s account since Latiff had not signed the bill of costs.

10 The petitioner met up with Latiff at McDonalds East Coast and apologised. He wanted Latiff to record the matter as a mistake so that he could get the investigating authorities to withdraw the matter against him. Latiff was angry but willing to do so provided that the petitioner returned the $4,815.24 owed as well as a refund of $700. The petitioner was surprised by the demand for the $700 but agreed as he felt that Latiff would not otherwise help him.

11 They subsequently met at Peninsula Plaza and the petitioner returned $5,515.24 to Latiff. He then asked Latiff to endorse the bill of costs to show that there had been a mistake. He also offered to compensate Latiff with $10,000 to placate Latiff and also to help Latiff who was in financial difficulties. However Latiff refused to do so as he did not trust the petitioner.

The proceedings below

The petitioner’s defence in the court below

12 The petitioner argued that there was no case to answer as s 409 of the Penal Code did not apply to an advocate and solicitor. In the alternative, he claimed that he was entitled to offset the costs of his legal fees against the money withdrawn and hence there was no dishonest misappropriation.

The trial judge’s holding

13 The trial judge held that s 409 of the Penal Code was the proper charge as the petitioner had been entrusted with the monies in his client’s account in the course of his duties as an advocate and solicitor.

14 The trial judge also dismissed the petitioner’s contention that he had withdrawn the monies without any dishonest intention. Instead she found that the petitioner had not only misappropriated the $4,815.24 with dishonest intent, but had then systematically set about to cover his tracks by concealing Eurofibre’s payment from Latiff and then fabricating a bill of costs by concocting instances of advice rendered to justify his alleged set off.

15 The trial judge having found that the prosecutor had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the petitioner had failed to raise a reasonable doubt by his defence, convicted the petitioner.

16 In sentencing the petitioner to seven months imprisonment, the trial judge took into account several factors: that the sum misappropriated was not very large; that he had claimed trial; his position as an advocate and solicitor in a position of trust vis--vis his client; that he had set out to conceal his misappropriation by hiding his receipt of the money from his client; his concoction of documents to bolster his defence; his allegations against the prosecution and courts; his lack of remorse after his conviction; that he had made restitution, although only to get Latiff to assist him in withdrawing the charges; and the sentencing guidelines laid down in the precedent cases.

Petition for revision

17 In this petition for criminal revision, the petitioner raised two issues:-

(1) that the trial judge had erred in law in holding that s 409 of the Penal Code was the correct charge in the circumstances; and

(2) that the trial judge had made numerous errors in her findings of fact.

...