Yusof bin A Samad v PP: Corruption by Police Hearse Driver & Admissibility of Statements
Yusof bin A Samad, a former police officer, was convicted in the District Court under Section 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for accepting gratification from Roland Tay Hai Choon in exchange for confidential information about deceased persons. The High Court, with Yong Pung How CJ presiding, dismissed Yusof's appeal, finding that the pre-trial statements made by Yusof to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau were admissible as evidence and that the prosecution had established the elements of corruption beyond a reasonable doubt.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Police hearse driver Yusof bin A Samad was convicted of corruption for receiving gratification. The appeal concerned the admissibility of statements.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Aedit Abdullah of Deputy Public Prosecutor Jennifer Marie of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Yusof bin A Samad | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Aedit Abdullah | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Jennifer Marie | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| M Amaladass | M Dass & Co |
4. Facts
- Appellant was a police hearse driver.
- Appellant received gratification from an undertaker, DW2.
- Appellant supplied confidential information to DW2.
- DW2 used the information to solicit business from deceased's families.
- Appellant made two pre-trial statements to CPIB.
- Appellant retracted his statements in a statutory declaration.
- PW1 introduced the appellant to DW2.
5. Formal Citations
- Yusof bin A Samad v Public Prosecutor, MA 341/1999, [2000] SGHC 181
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant introduced to DW2 by PW1. | |
| Appellant received first payment of $600 from DW2. | |
| Appellant received payment from DW2. | |
| Appellant asked PW1 to introduce him to DW2 to borrow money. | |
| Appellant received payment from DW2. | |
| Appellant received a 'red packet' of $200 from DW2 during Chinese New Year. | |
| Appellant received last payment from DW2. | |
| PW3's father died at home. | |
| Appellant made first statement to CPIB. | |
| Appellant made second statement to CPIB. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Admissibility of Statements
- Outcome: The court found the statements to be voluntary and admissible.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Voluntariness of statements
- Threat
- Inducement
- Promise
- Related Cases:
- [1991] SLR 150
- [1993] 2 SLR 14
- [1999] 1 SLR 25
- [1995] 2 SLR 255
- Corruption
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant had shown favour in relation to his principal's affairs.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Acceptance of gratification
- Showing of favour
- Objective corrupt element
- Subjective corrupt intent
- Related Cases:
- [1998] 2 SLR 592
- [1997] 1 SLR 134
- [1997] 3 SLR 332
- Procedural Irregularity
- Outcome: The court found that the procedural irregularity did not occasion a failure of justice.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to make ruling on impeachment of witness
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Corruption
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Corruption Offences
11. Industries
- Government (Law Enforcement)
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sim Ah Cheoh v PP | High Court | Yes | [1991] SLR 150 | Singapore | Cited regarding the admissibility of statements made to non-police officers and persistent questioning. |
| Tan Siew Chay v PP | High Court | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR 14 | Singapore | Cited regarding the admissibility of statements made to non-police officers. |
| Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v PP | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 25 | Singapore | Cited regarding the admissibility of statements made to non-police officers and the voluntariness test. |
| Choo Pit Hong Peter v PP | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR 255 | Singapore | Cited regarding the admissibility of statements not amounting to a confession made to a non-police officer and the court's residual discretion. |
| PP v Heah Lian Khin | High Court | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR 609 | Singapore | Cited regarding statements made by a witness to a CPIB officer investigating a non-Penal Code offence. |
| Cheng Swee Tiang v PP | High Court | Yes | [1964] MLJ 291 | Malaysia | Cited regarding judicial discretion to disallow unlawfully obtained evidence from a witness. |
| Rajendran s/o Kurusamy & Ors v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 225 | Singapore | Cited regarding the practice of conducting voir dires to ascertain the voluntariness and admissibility of witness statements. |
| Chua Poh Kiat Anthony v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 713 | Singapore | Cited regarding the practice of conducting voir dires to ascertain the voluntariness and admissibility of witness statements. |
| Tang Keng Boon v PP | High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 535 | Singapore | Cited regarding the voluntariness of witness statements. |
| Tan Khee Koon v PP | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR 724 | Singapore | Cited regarding the voluntariness of witness statements. |
| Anandagoda v R | Privy Council | Yes | [1962] MLJ 289 | Malaysia | Cited as the locus classicus case regarding the meaning of 'confession' and the objective test for determining whether a statement is a confession. |
| Chin Seow Noi v PP | High Court | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR 135 | Singapore | Cited regarding the application of the Anandagoda test in Singapore. |
| PP v Abdul Rashid | High Court | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR 794 | Singapore | Cited regarding the interpretation of Section 17(2) of the Evidence Act and the meaning of 'confession'. |
| Lim Young Sien v PP | High Court | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 257 | Singapore | Cited regarding the application of the Anandagoda test. |
| Dato Mokhtar bin Hashim v PP | Federal Court | Yes | [1983] 2 MLJ 232 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the objective and subjective test for voluntariness. |
| Md Desa bin Hashim v PP | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 MLJ 350 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the objective and subjective test for voluntariness. |
| Sim Ah Cheoh & Ors v PP | High Court | Yes | [1991] SLR 150 | Singapore | Cited regarding persistent questioning and oppression. |
| Seow Choon Meng v PP | High Court | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 853 | Singapore | Cited regarding persistent questioning and oppression. |
| Panya Martmontree v PP | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR 341 | Singapore | Cited regarding persistent questioning and oppression, and the burden of proof for voluntariness. |
| Koh Aik Siew v PP | High Court | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR 599 | Singapore | Cited regarding the burden of proof for voluntariness. |
| Sim Cheng Yong v PP | High Court | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR 722 | Singapore | Cited regarding inducement and voluntariness. |
| Ismail bin UK Abdul Rahman v PP | High Court | Yes | [1974] 2 MLJ 180 | Singapore | Cited regarding the reliance on retracted confessions. |
| Mohamed Bachu Miah & Anor v PP | High Court | Yes | [1993] 1 SLR 249 | Singapore | Cited regarding the reliance on retracted confessions. |
| Kwang Boon Keong Peter v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 592 | Singapore | Cited regarding the elements of corruption under s 6(a) of the PCA and the impeachment of witnesses. |
| Tan Choon Huat v PP | High Court | Yes | [1991] SLR 805 | Singapore | Cited regarding failure or miscarriage of justice. |
| PP v Low Tiong Choon | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 878 | Singapore | Cited regarding the objective corrupt element in a transaction. |
| Chan Wing Seng v PP | High Court | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR 427 | Singapore | Cited regarding the objective corrupt element in a transaction. |
| Tan Tze Chye v PP | High Court | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR 134 | Singapore | Cited regarding the elements of corruption under s 6(a) of the PCA. |
| PP v Har Su Meng | High Court | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 332 | Singapore | Cited regarding the elements of corruption under s 6(a) of the PCA. |
| Mohamed Ali bin Mohamed Iqbal v PP | High Court | Yes | [1979] 2 MLJ 58 | Singapore | Cited regarding the interpretation of 'in relation to his principal's affairs'. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241) | Singapore |
| s 6(a) Prevention of Corruption Act | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) | Singapore |
| s 396 Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Gratification
- Confidential information
- Corruption
- Voluntariness
- Pre-trial statements
- Police hearse driver
- Showing of favour
15.2 Keywords
- Corruption
- Police
- Hearse
- Gratification
- Statements
- Admissibility
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Prevention of Corruption Act | 95 |
| Criminal Procedure | 80 |
| Evidence | 75 |
| Criminal Law | 70 |
| Voluntariness of Statements | 65 |
| Admissibility of Statements | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Corruption
- Evidence
- Criminal Procedure