Tan Khee Koon v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 09 October 1995
• Neutral Citation: [1995] SGHC 236
• Date: 09 October 1995
• Subject Matter: s 58(1) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Proof of evidence,Impeaching witnesses’ credibility,Whether corroboration required,Criminal Law,Whether amounts to double counting,Need to demonstrate necessity and desirability,Whether caution needed to be exercised,Whether precluded by Criminal Procedure Code,ss 6, 8 & 9 Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241),ss 116 & 136 Evidence Act (Cap 97),Charge,Need for application,Separate charges for attempt of an offence and commission of components of that offence,Accomplice evidence,Prevention of Corruption Act,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,s 122 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),s 147(3) Evidence Act (Cap 97),Evidence,Witnesses,s 25 Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241),Documentary evidence,Accomplice a mere payor,Statutory offences,Accepting corrupt gratification,Reliance on truth of facts stated
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 300/94/01
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Lim Yew Jin (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Suchitra Ragupathy (Palakrishnan & Partners)

On 19 September 1995 I dismissed the appellant`s appeal against conviction and sentence, and now set out my grounds for doing so.

The appellant was tried and convicted in the district court on charges of corruption. The first charge read:

You, Tan Khee Koon, Male/46 years, NRIC No 0265656F are charged that you, on a day in August 1982, at the Commercial Crime Division of Criminal Investigation Department at Robinson Road, Singapore, being an agent, to wit a Police Staff Sergeant in the employ of the Singapore Police Force, Ministry of Home Affairs, and attached to the Commercial Crime Division, did corruptly attempt to obtain for yourself a gratification of a sum of $20,000 (Twenty Thousand Dollars) from one Ng Kwee Seng, a director-cum-manager of Wei Mark Trading Pte Ltd, as an inducement for forbearing to do an act in relation to your principal`s affairs, to wit, by refraining from prosecuting the said Ng Kwee Seng for committing offences of criminal breach of trust, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241).

The second charge was in the same terms, but in reference to a period between August 1982 and late 1983, relating to the receipt of gratification of a total sum of $5,260 in cash, a $500 hamper, a $700 writing desk and a $265 chair.

The third charge read:

You, Tan Khee Koon, Male/46 years, NRIC No 0265656F, are charged that you, on a day in January or February 1983, at Circuit Road, Singapore, being an agent , to wit, a Police Staff Sergeant in the employ of the Singapore Police Force, Ministry of Home Affairs, and attached to the Commercial Crime Division, did corruptly receive for a Police Sergeant Tan Beng Wah, a gratification, to wit, a hamper worth $500 and a red packet of $500, from one Ng Kwee Seng, a director-cum-manager of Wei Mark Trading Pte Ltd, as an inducement to the said Tan Beng Wah to refrain from prosecuting the said Ng Kwee Seng for committing offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 5(a)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241).

The fourth charge was for cheating; the appellant was acquitted but the prosecution did not appeal against that decision.

The prosecution`s case below

The complainant, Ng Kwee Seng, was under investigation by the Commercial Crime Division (CCD) on several complaints, including one by an Ng Hoy Keng (NHK). The appellant recorded a statement from the complainant in July or August 1982. The appellant informed the complainant that he could assist him in all the complaints except NHK`s, provided the complainant paid him $20,000. The complainant told the appellant that he would consider the offer. Just after the session, $200 was given by the complainant to the appellant when the latter asked for money.

Some days later, the appellant was informed that the offer was accepted, but payment had to be made in instalments. The appellant agreed to this but the quantum of each instalment was not specified. At the meeting where the agreement was reached, the complainant made a first payment of $1,000.

Throughout late 1982 and early 1983 various other payments and presents were made. The first of these occurred around September 1982. On this occasion, the appellant visited the complainant`s office and received $500. Having noticed in the office a desk and a chair during previous visits, the appellant asked the complainant for them and the complainant agreed. The two of them moved the furniture to the appellant`s home using a pick-up hired by the complainant.

In about the same period, the two met again at the Bukit Turf Club, where the appellant received a sum of $500. Another $500 was received in November 1982 at a Paya Lebar Road coffeeshop. In January 1983, the appellant asked for two hampers and two red packets. One of these hampers and a red packet were purportedly to be given to one Sergeant Tan Beng Wah (TBW), who was also involved in some investigations against the complainant. These items were handed over to the appellant at his father`s house. In February 1983, the appellant asked for some money for the purchase of furniture. He was given $1,000.

In that year, the complainant was charged only on the complaint by NHK. After this, the appellant reminded the complainant to pay him the $20,000 agreed to, which led to another $1,000 being paid. At the end of the year, when the appellant told the complainant that the appellant`s wife had just given birth, the complainant gave the appellant $60.

No further sums were given after this as the complainant was in financial difficulties. In 1985, after the complainant had stopped giving money, the appellant warned that he would stop assisting the complainant. A police gazette was eventually issued leading to the arrest of the complainant. He was then charged.

After his arrest, the complainant confronted the appellant in front of other officers. In this confrontation, the payments and gifts made to the appellant were mentioned by the complainant. The appellant remained silent in the face of such disclosures. During the recording of a statement by the complainant, the complainant was informed falsely by the appellant that it was actually TBW who had caused the gazette to be issued. However, the complainant subsequently learnt that this was untrue, and the gazette had indeed been issued by the appellant.

While TBW was interrogating the complainant on another matter, it was disclosed to him that the hamper and red packet were to be given to him. TBW questioned the appellant about these items, but the appellant remained silent.

After what had happened, the complainant was so distrustful of the appellant that during an interrogation by the appellant, the complainant insisted upon an interpreter being present.

As the appellant was in the employment of the government, he had committed offences under ss 6(a) and 5(a)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241) (the Act).

The defence

The defence was basically one of denial. A number of facts were in dispute, relating to the desk, the gratification, the credibility of some of the witnesses, that of the complainant, the absence of misconduct, the confrontation between the complainant and the appellant, and finally, the conduct of the prosecution.

(a) The desk

The desk was admitted to have been given to the appellant but not by the complainant. It was given rather by one Tan Seng Lee (Tan). Tan testified that he had noticed the desk at the complainant`s workplace. As the complainant told him that it was not wanted, Tan arranged for it to be given to the appellant. The complainant was not told whom it was given to. Neither was the appellant told whom it was from. Some movers did the transporting of the desk; as the desk was heavy, more than two persons were required to move it. A difficulty encountered during the moving of the desk was that there was a side attachment which could not be removed.

(b) The other gratification

It made no sense for the appellant to risk asking for the money and receiving it in public places, such as the Turf Club.

(c) Credibility of witnesses

The prosecution had attempted to support the fact of payment by the testimony of the complainant`s stepmother and brother that they had given the complainant some money, supposedly for `coffee money` for a government official. The credibility of the step-mother`s testimony was doubtful as she had testified that, in all that time before the trial, she had never asked what her testimony was to have been for. The brother`s evidence had to be rejected as he had testified that he was asked by the complainant to say that the complainant had borrowed a sum of money from him. No evidence was given that such money given to the complainant was in fact passed on to the appellant. Neither was TBW a credible witness for he ought to have known of the issue of the police gazette against the complainant and yet he testified that he had not known of it.

(d) Credibility of the complainant

A number of points were raised about the complainant`s credibility. It was pointed out that the complainant failed to give the name of the shop where the hampers were bought, though these were substantial purchases. Neither could the plaintiff have been able to make the payments alleged as he had no regular income during the material period. It was also suspicious that the complainant did not raise the allegations of corruption until some time after he was charged in court. In addition, several other supposed discrepancies were noted.

(e) No misconduct

No misconduct at all occurred in the investigations involving the complainant. Though his superiors had indeed instructed him to reopen investigations, there was no allegation that the appellant was at fault in any way. That the investigations went through slowly was because a number of other matters with higher priority came up.

(f) The confrontation

As for the confrontation between the complainant and the appellant, no report was made to the superior officers which indicate that no allegations of bribery were made. DSP Yap Kiang Keong, the Chief Investigating Officer, did not receive any report from TBW concerning the allegations. As for the presence of an interpreter during the recording of the complainant`s statement by the appellant, that was not indicative of anything as she was used so as to render the statement admissible in court.

(g) The conduct of the prosecution

Difficulties were faced conducting the defence as the prosecution failed to disclose the relevant investigation papers.

The decision

The conviction was grounded upon the testimony of the complainant. He was found to be a reliable witness, as he had detailed knowledge of the details of the meeting and the appellant`s particulars during the material period. In contrast, it was found that the appellant was not a truthful witness.

Dealing first with the desk,...