A CASE
The woman was arrested and tried in the district court on the following charge:
You, XXXX, female, 36 years, NRIC No SXXXXX, are charged that you, on 6 March 199X, at about 6.30pm, at Block XX Marsiling Lane, #XX-XX, Singapore, a place used for human dwelling, committed theft of a gold bangle valued at about $436, in the possession of one Loo XXX, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 380 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).
At the conclusion of the trial, the district judge acquitted the woman. The public prosecutor appealed against the order of acquittal.
On 6 March XXXX, at about 6pm, the woman, a saleswoman who did door to door sales of gas safety valves, visited the flat of one Madam Loo XXX, at Block XX, Marsiling Lane, #XX-XX, Singapore. After the woman left, Madam Loo suspected that the woman might have taken a gold bangle. The woman denied taking the gold bangle. Madam Loo reported to the police. The woman was arrested on the same evening.
From about 12.25 am, the woman was questioned by a team of three police officers, The interrogation lasted until about 6.10am. During this period, no statement was recorded from the woman. At 10am the police recorded a statement from her. The recording of the statement ended at 11.15am with the woman admitting the theft. Subsequent to the recording of the statement and based on the information provided by the woman, the bangle was found lying on a grass verge at the foot of the Madam Loo's flat. The woman was released on bail on the same day.
At the trial, the prosecutor sought to admit the statement of the woman recorded by the police. The woman's lawyer objected to its admissibility on the ground that it was involuntary. The woman claimed that the police threatened to lock her up if she did not admit to the charge. She claimed she was taken to a cold dark room for interrogation and was continuously harassed, abused and assaulted by the police. She also claimed that she was not given any food or drink after her arrest. When she was taken out to be interrogated in the morning, she claimed that she was forced to sign a prepared statement. She alleged that the police had threatened to put her in a lock-up for three months if she did not sign. She also claimed that the police officer had swung out his hand as if to hit her. She did not know the contents of the statement.
The police denied harassing or assaulting the woman. They claimed that the questioning took a long time only because they felt that the woman was not cooperative.
At the conclusion of the trial, the district judge acquitted the woman.
The prosecutor appealed. The prosecutor stated that it was only consequent to the woman's statement that the police proceeded to the foot of Block XX whereupon they found the bangle at the grass verge below the kitchen window of the flat. The discovery of the bangle there showed that the woman had knowledge of its location. The facts gave rise to an irresistible inference that the woman must have taken the gold bangle and had thrown it out of the flat, with the intention of stealing it.
The prosecutor contended that when an application was made by the prosecution under section 27 of the Evidence Act, the only question open to the court was whether the statement led to the discovery of the gold bangle and if so, it should be admitted. This was because section 27 was an exception to sections 24 to 26 of the Evidence Act and sections 122(5) and 122(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code which prohibits the admission of statements, which appear to the court to have been made involuntarily (ie the confession must not be made without any inducement, threat or promise, and must be made to a police officer not below the rank of sergeant).
Section 27 reads as follows:
When any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether such information amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved.
Section 27 of the Evidence Act represents loosely what is known as the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent facts. This doctrine holds that where in consequence of a confession, otherwise inadmissible, a search is made and facts are discovered which confirm the confession in material points, the possible influence which through caution had been attributed to the improper inducement is seen to have been nil and the confession may be accepted. Before section 27 can be invoked, it is essential to prove that a fact was discovered in consequence of the information received from the accused. The information must be such as has caused discovery of a fact.
The court of appeal was satisfied that the acquittal was wrong and ordered a retrial. The district judge was directed to admit the woman's statement that she had thrown the gold bangle out of the window.
The woman was convicted at the retrial.
raffleslaw.com
raffleslaw@yahoo.com
raffleslaw@hotmail.com
