Yap Giau Beng Terence v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 08 July 1998
• Neutral Citation: [1998] SGHC 232
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 16 of 1998
• Date: 08 July 1998
• Year: 1998
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Michael Khoo SC and Ng Chon Hsing (Michael Khoo & Partners)
• Citation: [1998] SGHC 232
• Defendant Counsel: Amarjit Singh (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: s 123 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Whether any reason to interfere with trial judge's findings of fact in present case,Whether trial judge exercised discretion correctly in refusing to recall witness,Applicable principles,Statutory offences,Witnesses,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Elements of offence,Recalling witness,Appeal,Corruptly offering gratification,s 5(b)(i) Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241),Purpose of s 123 cautioned statements,Whether appellant's offer of money was for corrupt purpose,Whether trial judge entitled to draw adverse inference against appellant for failing to mention material aspects of his defence in his cautioned statements,Appellant offered unspecified sum as inducement to witnesses not to to report appellant to police,Criminal Law,Statements,Court's discretion to recall witness where essential to just decision of case,s 399 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Power of appellate court to reverse findings of fact,Prevention of Corruption Act,Trials,Words and Phrases,Cautioned statements,'Corruptly'

Judgment:

YONG PUNG HOW CJ

The appellant was convicted on the following charges:

First charge

You, Terence Yap Giau Beng, on or about 2 January 1996, at Yishun Bus Interchange, Singapore, did corruptly offer to one Ng Geok Hock, a gratification of an unspecified sum, as an inducement for forbearing to do an act, to wit, reporting you to the police for running away from a traffic accident at the junction of Yishun Avenue 2 and Avenue 5, Singapore and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 5(b)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241).

Second charge

You, Terence Yap Giau Beng, on or about 2 January 1996, at Yishun Bus Interchange, Singapore, did corruptly offer to one Goh Soon Bee, a gratification of an unspecified sum, as an inducement for forbearing to do an act, to wit, reporting you to the police for running away from a traffic accident at the junction of Yishun Avenue 2 and Avenue 5, Singapore and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 5(b)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241).

2. Facts

The appellant was involved in an accident on 2 January 1996 at about 12am, at the junction of Yishun Avenues 5 and 2. He was in the process of negotiating a right turn into Yishun Avenue 2 from Yishun Avenue 5 when a motorcycle travelling along Yishun Avenue 2 collided into the rear left door of the appellant`s car. The appellant drove on without stopping. The motorcyclist and the pillion rider sustained fractured limbs and were taken to hospital.

3.The accused was later arrested and his blood was found to contain 149mg of ethanol per 100ml of blood. He pleaded guilty to the following charges under the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 1994 Ed):

(a) Driving under the influence of drink under s 67(1); and

(b) Failing to render assistance to persons injured in an accident under s 84(3).

The following charges were taken into consideration:

(a) Failing to stop a vehicle in an accident under s 84(1); and

(b) Moving a vehicle involved in an accident under s 84(4).

He was sentenced to one month`s imprisonment and ten years` disqualification from driving and fined $800. On appeal to the High Court, the sentence of one month`s imprisonment was set aside and a fine of $5,000 was imposed.

4.In March 1997, the witnesses to the accident were interviewed on the local television program `Code Red`. The matter was then referred to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) by the Television Corporation of Singapore.

The prosecution`s case

Ng Geok Hock (PW1)

5.Ng testified that he was driving his taxi along Yishun Avenue 5 when he witnessed the accident. After the appellant had completed the turn into Yishun Avenue 2, the appellant slowed down before picking up speed again and driving off. When Ng saw the appellant driving off, he followed the appellant`s car. The appellant turned into a side road with a no entry sign. Ng followed him. The appellant then turned right into the Yishun bus interchange. Ng flashed the headlights of his taxi and sounded his horn to try to get the appellant to stop. When the appellant was close to the exit of the interchange, Ng drove alongside the appellant`s car. The appellant then stopped. Ng parked his taxi in front of the appellant`s car to prevent him from driving off. Both drivers alighted from their vehicles.

6.Ng asked the appellant in a mixture of English and Hokkien why he had `hit and run`. The appellant replied, `No` and said that he wanted to give Ng money to let him go. By this time, Ng had already called the police on his handphone and reported the matter. He therefore told the appellant that he had already called the police and was waiting for their arrival. Under cross-examination, he admitted that he could not remember the exact words of the conversation. But he was adamant that the appellant had offered him money to let him go and that this offer had been made two or three times. He was also adamant that the appellant had made the offer before he had told the appellant that he had already called the police.

7.Ong (PW2) and Susan Goh (PW4) then arrived on the scene. He overheard part of the conversation between Susan Goh and the appellant. Susan Goh asked the appellant why he had not stopped after knocking somebody down and had instead run away. The appellant then offered her money if she let him go. Susan said that she did not want his money.

Ong Siong San (PW2)

8.Ong was driving his taxi along Yishun Avenue 5 when he witnessed the accident. He drove after the appellant`s car. He followed him into the side road with the no entry sign all the way into the interchange. He parked his taxi behind the appellant`s car. He saw the appellant and Ng talking but could not hear their conversation. He asked the appellant if he was trying to run away after knocking somebody down. The appellant replied that he did not know what had happened and that he was not trying to run away. Ong then asked him why he had ignored the no entry sign if he was not trying to run away. The appellant remained silent. Susan Goh then arrived. Ong then went back to the scene of the accident. When he returned to the interchange, he saw Ng and Susan Goh scolding the appellant. He heard them say that the appellant had knocked somebody down, failed to stop and was still trying to run away. He also heard them say, `Your money very big.` Susan Goh then told him that the appellant had offered them money to let him go. Ong became very angry and scolded the appellant for trying to escape after knocking down somebody. Ong also said, `Your money is so big. Two lives are involved.`

9.Under cross-examination, Ong said that when they were scolding the appellant, his impression was that he told them to let him go. It was also his impression that Ng had already reported the matter to the police. Under further cross-examination, Ong said that the appellant had asked them to let him go home. Ong later clarified this, saying that the appellant had pleaded with them to let him go. Under re-examination, Ong further claified this, saying that the appellant was trying to tell them to let him off. None of this was in Ong`s evidence-in-chief.

10.At this point counsel for the defence applied to recall Ng so as to put to Ng that he, similarly, merely had an impression that the appellant was asking Ng to let him go. Counsel for the prosecution objected on the ground that Ng had already been cross-examined extensively on whether the appellant had asked Ng to let him go. The trial judge agreed and refused the application.

Susan Goh Soon Bee (PW4)

11.Susan Goh was in a car driven by her sister Goh Quek Bee (Goh) (PW3) when she witnessed the accident. When the appellant failed to stop, she ran after his car to try and record the appellant`s registration plate number. She arrived at the interchange to find the appellant talking to two taxi drivers, Ng and Ong. She said that one of the taxi drivers had asked the appellant why he had failed to stop after knocking down somebody. The appellant asked him not to report the matter to the police. The taxi driver said that the matter must be reported. The appellant then offered them money in return for not reporting the matter to the police. Under cross-examination, Susan Ong was adamant as to what the appellant had said as well as to the sequence of the conversation. The appellant had asked them not to report him to the police and that he would give them all money if they all let him go. The taxi driver had then told the appellant that he had already reported the matter.

12.The appellant then spoke to Susan Goh alone and asked her to speak to the other taxi drivers on his behalf. He told her that he would give all of them money if they let him off. Under cross-examination, she was adamant that the offer of money had been made to all three of them and not to her alone, and that the appellant had gesticulated in the direction of the two taxi drivers when making the offer.

Goh Guek Bee (PW3)

13.Goh was driving her car with Susan Goh beside her when she witnessed the accident. Susan had got out and run after the appellant`s car. When Susan returned, she was very angry and told her how the appellant had offered them money to let him go and how the appellant had approached her to reason with the taxi drivers on his behalf.

The appellant`s statements

14.The appellant viewed a recording of the program `Code Red` before making a statement under s 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Ed). The material parts of the statement are as follows:

3 On that night, after I realised that I hit an object at the junction of Yishun Ave 2 & 5, I turned to Yishun Bus Interchange and stop there. Soon I realised that there were two taxi drivers parked in front and back of my vehicle. They started scolding me for not stopping after hitting the motorcycle. Later, one lady join them. The lady was very angry and aggressive. At that moment, I thought that the lady was related to the motorcyclist.

4 I was in a state of shock and panic after they told me that I had hit a motorcycle. I pleaded with them not to report to the police. I remember clearly that I told them to `talk about it` first before reporting to the police. What I meant was that if they demanded money I would give it to them. One of the taxi drivers told me that he had already reported to the police. In the process of pleading with them, I might have told them that I would offer them money if they could let me go. I did not remember how much I was going to give them to let me go. I cannot remember how actually I phrased the sentence. I was in the lost and I did not know what I was saying.

5 I wish to say I do not normally behave that way. I was not in the right frame of mind after the accident. I was also very high at that time after consumption of alcohol.

15.In his cautioned statements to the two charges, the appellant simply said that he would like to consult his lawyer.

16...