Public Prosecutor v Ng Ai Tiong: Abetment by Instigation to Give False Evidence in Civil Suit
In Public Prosecutor v Ng Ai Tiong, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by the prosecution against the acquittal of Ng Ai Tiong, who was charged with abetting Ong Soon Chye by instigating him to commit the offence of giving false evidence in a judicial proceeding. The court, presided over by Chief Justice Yong Pung How, allowed the appeal, convicted Ng Ai Tiong, and sentenced him to one year's imprisonment, finding that Ng had indeed instigated Ong to make a false statement intended for use in a civil suit.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Ng Ai Tiong was charged with abetting Ong Soon Chye to give false evidence in a civil suit. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding Ng guilty and sentencing him to imprisonment.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Appellant | Government Agency | Appeal Allowed | Won | Mohammad Nizam bin Ismail, Eugene Teo |
| Ng Ai Tiong | Respondent | Individual | Guilty as charged | Lost | S Magintharan, Y Suriamoorthy |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Mohammad Nizam bin Ismail | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Eugene Teo | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| S Magintharan | Netto Tan & S Magin |
| Y Suriamoorthy | Netto Tan & S Magin |
4. Facts
- Ng borrowed $25,000 from Yong.
- Yong sued Ng for failing to repay the loan.
- Ng alleged Yong was an illegal moneylender.
- Ng asked Roger Ong to falsely admit to borrowing money from Yong.
- Roger Ong reported the incident to Yong and the police.
- Ng filed an affidavit withdrawing his previous allegations as part of a settlement.
- Ng defaulted on the settlement payments and was made bankrupt.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Ng Ai Tiong, MA 113/1999, [2000] SGHC 1
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Ng borrowed $25,000 from Yong. | |
| Yong brought civil proceedings against Ng to recover the amount owed. | |
| Yong met with Roger Ong and discussed the problems with Ng. | |
| Interrogatories were served on Yong by Ng's solicitors. | |
| Ng affirmed his affidavit of evidence in chief for the civil suit. | |
| Ng and Roger Ong met at Plaza Hotel. | |
| Roger Ong telephoned Yong to inform him about the meeting with Ng. | |
| Yong and Roger Ong met at Yong's office. | |
| Roger Ong made a police report. | |
| Roger Ong affirmed an affidavit of evidence in chief. | |
| Ng's affidavit was served on Yong's solicitors. | |
| Consent judgment was entered against Ng. | |
| High Court allowed the appeal and convicted Ng. |
7. Legal Issues
- Abetment by Instigation
- Outcome: The court found that Ng Ai Tiong did instigate Ong Soon Chye to make a false statement.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Active suggestion
- Support
- Stimulation
- Encouragement
- Related Cases:
- [1992] 1 SLR 45
- [1977] 1 MLJ 180
- [1981] 2 MLJ 230
- Findings of Fact by Trial Court
- Outcome: The court determined that the trial judge's findings of fact were incorrect and overturned them.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1999] 3 SLR 93
- [1992] 1 SLR 713
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction
- Imprisonment
9. Cause of Actions
- Abetment by Instigation
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tan Hung Yeoh v PP | High Court | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR 93 | Singapore | Cited for the principles governing an appellate court's role in reviewing a trial judge's findings of fact. |
| Lim Ah Poh v PP | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 713 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will not disturb findings of fact unless they are clearly reached against the weight of the evidence. |
| Soh Yang Tick v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 43 | Singapore | Cited as endorsing the principle in Lim Ah Poh v PP regarding appellate review of factual findings. |
| Sundara Moorthy Lankatharan v PP | High Court | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 464 | Singapore | Cited as endorsing the principle in Lim Ah Poh v PP regarding appellate review of factual findings. |
| Yap Giau Beng Terence v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 656 | Singapore | Cited as endorsing the principle in Lim Ah Poh v PP regarding appellate review of factual findings. |
| Ng Soo Hin v PP | High Court | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR 105 | Singapore | Cited as endorsing the principle in Lim Ah Poh v PP regarding appellate review of factual findings. |
| Lee Tiaw Chwee v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 563 | Singapore | Cited as endorsing the principle in Lim Ah Poh v PP regarding appellate review of factual findings. |
| PP v Lim Tee Hian | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 45 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of 'instigation' in the context of abetment. |
| PP v Datuk Haji Harun bin Haji Idris & Ors | High Court | Yes | [1977] 1 MLJ 180 | Malaysia | Cited for the definition of 'instigation' as acts amounting to active suggestion or support for the commission of the main act or offence. |
| Ragunath Das v Emperor | N/A | Yes | [1920] 21 Cr LJ 213 | N/A | Cited for the principle that advice can become instigation if meant to actively suggest or stimulate the commission of an offence. |
| Haji Abdul Ghani bin Ishak & Anor v PP | High Court | Yes | [1981] 2 MLJ 230 | Malaysia | Cited for the essential ingredient in a prosecution for abetment that there must be some evidence to show that the abettor actively suggested or stimulated the principal offender to the act. |
| Baby John v State | N/A | No | [1953] Cri LJ 1273 | India | Cited for the interpretation of the word 'instigate' as explained in Russell on Crimes. |
| Emperor v Amruddin Salebhoy Tyabjee | N/A | No | [1923] AIR 44 | India | Cited for the interpretation of the word 'instigate'. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224) s 108 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224) s 116 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224) s 193 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Abetment
- Instigation
- False Evidence
- Civil Suit
- Illegal Moneylending
- Affidavit
- Consent Judgment
15.2 Keywords
- Abetment
- Instigation
- False Evidence
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
- High Court
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Abetment
- Criminal Procedure
- Evidence
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Abetment
- Criminal Procedure