Tan Mui Teck v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 25 July 2003
• Neutral Citation: [2003] SGHC 162
• Date: 25 July 2003
• Subject Matter: Normal tariff sentence for offence under s 193 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed),Allegation of collusion between prosecution witnesses,Burden of proof,Principles to apply when determining weight of expert evidence,Witnesses,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Conflicting expert evidence,Weight of evidence,Sentencing,Evidence
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 11 of 2003
• Published date: 03 October 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Eddy Tham (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Chia Boon Teck and Roy Yeo (Chia Yeo Partnership)

The appellant, Tan Mui Teck (‘Tan’) was convicted in the district court on six counts of giving false evidence in a judicial proceeding, which is an offence under s 193 of the Penal Code. Tan was sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment on each charge with the sentences on three charges to run consecutively for a total term of two years’ imprisonment. Tan appealed against both his conviction and sentence. The Public Prosecutor filed an appeal against the sentence on the ground that it was manifestly inadequate. I dismissed the appeal against conviction and allowed Tan’s appeal against sentence, reducing it to one of six months per charge with the sentences for three charges to run consecutively. I now give my reasons.

Background

2 At all material times, Tan was the managing director as well as a shareholder in Ishida Technologies (‘the Company’). In 1998, the Company launched a civil suit against three former employees – Ivan Tan (‘Ivan’), Sharon Wan (‘Sharon’), and Edmond Kuan (‘Edmond’) [collectively referred to as ‘the trio’] – for breach of contract. The trio counter-claimed for the balance of their wages and their Central Provident Fund (‘CPF’) entitlements. In response, Tan filed an affidavit of evidence-in-chief that the trio was not entitled to CPF contributions as they were consultants hired on a temporary basis, rather than full-time employees. He further asserted that they had each received full payment for their consultancy services.

3 In support of this, Tan presented two sets of documents. The first set consisted of three consultancy agreements, which each member of the trio had purportedly signed with the Company. The second set consisted of three sets of payment vouchers, which the trio had purportedly initialled, acknowledging the receipt of payments for their ‘consultancy services’. Tan claimed that the trio had signed all these documents in his presence.

4 Upon sight of these documents, the trio informed their solicitors that this was the first time that they had laid eyes on the documents and that the signatures did not belong to them. They were then advised to lodge a police report.

The charges

5 Tan was subsequently charged under s 193 of the Penal Code. The first three charges alleged that he knowingly gave false evidence that three persons – namely Ivan, Sharon and Edmond, had signed and entered into the consultancy agreements dated 7 January 1997 with the Company. The fourth to sixth charges alleged that he knowingly gave false evidence that the same three persons had initialled certain payment vouchers.

Appeal against conviction

6 Since the crux of the prosecution’s case lay in proving that the signatures were false, much of the trial centred upon the conflicting opinions of the experts brought by each side. Not surprisingly, counsel for Tan’s primary argument on appeal was that the judge had erred in his treatment of the expert evidence. His second argument was that the judge had erred in his assessment of the credibility of the witnesses.

Expert evidence

7 At trial, the prosecution’s expert witness was one Yap Bei Sing – a document examiner with the Health Sciences Authority. Mr Yap explained that there were seven levels of certainty in relation to the evidence observed between a questioned signature and a specimen signature. Level 1 indicated that the same person wrote both the specimen and questioned signature. Level 7 indicated that the person who wrote the specimen did not write the questioned signature.

8 Having compared the signatures on the consultancy agreements with the specimen signatures of the trio, Mr Yap concluded with a Level 6 certainty that there was no evidence to indicate that Ivan and Edmond had signed the consultancy agreements. He was similarly certain that Ivan had not initialled the payment vouchers. He could not come to any conclusions as to Edmond’s initials on the payment vouchers as well as Sharon’s signatures and initials because the specimens were too different from the questioned signatures.

9 Tan’s expert was one James Blanco, an examiner of questioned documents from the United States, who was certified by the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners. Mr Blanco’s opinion was the direct opposite of Mr Yap’s. He concluded with a Level 1 certainty that Ivan had signed both the consultancy agreement and the payment vouchers. He further concluded that Edmond had signed the consultancy agreement. Like Mr Yap, he was unable to assist the Court as to the signatures and initials of Sharon, as well as the initials of Edmond.

Whether the judge erred in preferring the prosecution’s expert

10 Counsel for Tan submitted to the Court that the judge should have preferred the expert evidence of Mr Blanco as he was more ‘experienced and illustrious’ than Mr Yap. It is pertinent to note that counsel was not suggesting that Mr Yap was not a competent witness. Rather, counsel’s argument was that Mr...