Tan Choon Huat v Public Prosecutor

JudgeMPH Rubin JC
Judgment Date15 May 1991
Neutral Citation[1991] SGHC 65
Citation[1991] SGHC 65
Defendant CounselPalaniappan Sundararaj (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
Published date19 September 2003
Plaintiff CounselB Rengarajoo (B Rengarajoo & Associates)
Date15 May 1991
Docket NumberMagistrate's Appeal No 244 of 1990
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Subject MatterStatements,Statutory offences,Voluntariness,Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act,s 122(5) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Accused not asked if he wanted to make any amendments,Possession of offensive weapon,ss 24 & 105 Evidence Act (Cap 97 1990 Ed),Appeal,Criminal Law,ss 6 & 8 Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act (Cap 65),Consorting,Evidential presumption,Appellate court only to interfere with finding of a trial court if conclusion reached by it was against the weight of evidence,Proper procedure not followed,Role of appellate court in assessing facts and evidence,Long period of interrogation without lunch break

This is an appeal against conviction and sentence. The charge on which the appellant was convicted reads as follows:

Charge in MAC 17374 of 1986

You, Tan Choon Huat are charged that you, on or about 9 October 1986 at about 1.15am, at National Stadium East Entrance, Stadium Road, Singapore, which is a public place, were found in the company of Goh Chong Chi m/27 yrs and Low Keau An m/23 yrs, who had in their possession an offensive weapon, to wit, a knife each, in contravention of s 6(1) of Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act (Cap 65) in circumstances which raise a reasonable presumption that you knew that the said Goh Chong Chi and Low Keau An had in their possession such weapons, and thereby committed an offence punishable under s 8(1) read with s 6(1) of the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act (Cap 65).



Section 6(1) of the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act (Cap 65) (the Act) reads:

Any person who in any public road or place carries or has in his possession or under his control any offensive weapon otherwise than with lawful authority or for a lawful purpose shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years and shall also be punished with caning with not less than six strokes.



Section 8(1) of the Act reads:

Any person who consorts with, or is found in the company of, another person who is carrying or has in his possession or under his control any offensive weapon in contravention of s 6, in circumstances which raise a reasonable presumption that he knew that that other person was carryor had in his possession or under his control any such weapon shall, unless he shall prove that he had reasonable grounds for believing that that other person was carrying or had in his possession or under his control any such weapon for a lawful purpose, be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to the like punishment as that other person with whom he was consorting or in whose company he was found.



The appellant and the other two persons, namely, Goh and Low, referred to in the charge were tried jointly.
The appellant was charged under s 8(1) read with s 6(1) of the Act whereas Goh and Low were charged only under s 6(1) of the Act for being in possession of a knife each without lawful authority. As it happened, after the prosecution closed its case, Goh and Low decided to plead guilty and were convicted and sentenced to four months` imprisonment and were given six strokes of the cane each.

The prosecution`s case against the appellant was that the appellant and the other two persons (the said Goh and Low) were apprehended at about 1.15am on 9 October 1986 near the east entrance of the National Stadium.
They were seen by the police to be behaving in a suspicious manner and the police saw one of them, Low, throwing away a knife which he had with him. In the ensuing search by the police, it was found that the other person Goh had a knife tucked in his waist. The appellant did not have any offensive weapon on him. The weapons seized were kitchen knives.

In the event, they were all taken to the Beach Road Police Station where they were interrogated, and insofar as is material to this appeal, a statement was recorded from the appellant under s 122(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) (CPC) at about 4.30pm on the same day (about 15 hours later).


The admission of the said statement was objected to at the trial on the grounds that it was not given voluntarily.
It was alleged that it was obtained under vigorous and continuous interrogation of the appellant between 10.48am and 3.05pm on 9 October 1986 without lunch, the police knowing full well that the appellant had not taken his breakfast that morning; he was denied sleep and rest for over 15 hours before his statement was recorded; he had been assaulted, ill-treated and threatened during the interrogation; he was told that he would be remanded for seven days if he did not make a statement; he would be taken to his flat handcuffed but if he were to sign the statement he would not be jailed and was promised that the court would be asked by the police to be lenient. The appellant was also not allowed an opportunity to make any amendment, alteration or addition to the statement recorded and that considerable pressure was brought to bear upon the appellant, then only 18 years of age.

After a somewhat spirited trial within a trial, the learned magistrate admitted the statement and held that he was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the statement was given by the appellant voluntarily without any threat, inducement or promise held out to the appellant.
The material part of the statement thus admitted reads as follows:

3 On 8 October 1986, I was not working. I was at the rented room at 1200 hrs. On the same day at about 10.30pm my room-mates, namely, Suah Yee (refers to Goh Chong Chi) and Lau Shu (refers to Low Keau An) came home. They bought some beers. I then joined them in the drinking session. Three of us drank about eight cans of beers. Whilst drinking I don`t know who started to discuss about the topic of committing robbery. At that time I was rather drunk. I remembered that I agreed to join them in the robbery. At about 1am three of us left the rented room and walked to National Stadium. If I am not mistaken I think I heard Lau Shu suggesting going to National Stadium. So three of us went to National Stadium. Halfway walking along Lorong 6 Geylang junction, Lau Shu and Suah Yee
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Yusof bin A Samad v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 4 September 2000
    ...PP [1991] 1 SLR (R) 961; [1991] SLR 150 (folld) Sim Cheng Yong v PP [1994] 1 SLR (R) 689; [1994] 1 SLR 722 (refd) Tan Choon Huat v PP [1991] 1 SLR (R) 863; [1991] SLR 805 (folld) Tan Siew Chay v PP [1993] 1 SLR (R) 267; [1993] 2 SLR 14 (folld) Tan Tze Chye v PP [1996] 3 SLR (R) 357; [1997] ......
  • Bala Murugan a/l Krishnan and Another v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 12 July 2002
    ...v R [1937] MLJ 261 at 261; Goh Ah San v R [1938] MLJ 95 at 99; In re AB Ltd [1956] MLJ 197 at 200; Tan Choon Huat v Public Prosecutor [1991] 1 SLR 805 at 808; Lim Ah Poh v Public Prosecutor [1992] 1 SLR 713 at 719; Tan Hung Yeoh v Public Prosecutor [1999] 3 SLR 93 at 103 and Chng Gim Huat v......
  • Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 16 October 1998
    ...were breached, the overall impression would be one of doubt as to the voluntariness of the accused`s statements: Tan Choon Huat v PP [1991] SLR 805 [1991] 3 MLJ 230 . Handcuffing of the accused throughout the recording of the statement was a form of restraint and was oppressive as to cast d......
  • Public Prosecutor v Fernando Payagala Waduge Malitha Kumar
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 15 February 2007
    ...Practice in the Subordinate Courts (2nd Ed, 2003) (“Sentencing”) at page 39. This proposition was explained in Tan Choon Huat v PP [1991] SLR 805 by Rubin JC at 811 in the following … having regard to the nature of the offence, the circumstances of the case and the fact that the appellant i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • THE CONCEPT OF VOLUNTARINESS IN THE LAW OF CONFESSIONS
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2005, December 2005
    • 1 December 2005
    ...cases in which the court held that the confessions were involuntarily obtained include PP v Lim Kian Tat, supra n 73; Tan Choon Huat v PP[1991] SLR 805, Poh Kay Keong v PP[1996] 1 SLR 209 and PP v Selvakumar Pillai s/o Suppiah Pillai[2004] 4 SLR 280. 76 [1989] Crim LR 62, CA. 77 [1995] Crim......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT