Lim Poh Tee v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Sentence for Corruption by Police Officer
Lim Poh Tee appealed to the High Court of Singapore against the sentence imposed by the district court for his conviction on one charge of corruptly accepting gratification. Lim, an Acting Inspector in the Singapore Police Force, was found guilty of accepting free entertainment from Chua Tiong Tiong, an illegal moneylender, as an inducement to assist Chua in his illegal activities. Yong Pung How CJ dismissed the appeal, upholding the original sentence of two and a half years' imprisonment.
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
Lim Poh Tee, a police officer, appealed against his sentence for corruption. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence appropriate given the abuse of power.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Tan Boon Gin of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Lim Poh Tee | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tan Boon Gin | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| K. Muralidharan Pillai | Allen & Gledhill |
4. Facts
- Lim Poh Tee, an Acting Inspector, accepted free entertainment from Chua Tiong Tiong, an illegal moneylender.
- Lim was convicted of corruptly accepting gratification under s 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- Lim introduced junior officers to Chua, informing Chua they were responsible for investigating moneylending cases.
- Lim asked junior officers to provide information on loan shark cases to pass on to Chua.
- Lim had a previous conviction for a similar corruption offence in 1998.
- Chua was jointly tried and convicted of corruptly giving gratification to Lim.
5. Formal Citations
- Lim Poh Tee v Public Prosecutor, MA 342/1999, [2001] SGHC 26
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Lim joined the Singapore Police Force as a police constable. | |
| Lim and Chua frequented the Lido Palace Nite Club at least four or five times. | |
| Lee Hwee Leong was arrested for an offence under the Moneylenders Act. | |
| Lim's previous conviction for an offence of corruption punishable under s 6(a) PCA. | |
| MA 342/1999: Case initiated. | |
| High Court dismissed the appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Sentencing for Corruption
- Outcome: The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and upheld the original sentence.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Need for substantial deterrent sentence
- Whether manifestly excessive
- Consistency with similar cases
- Relevance of previous conviction
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Corruption
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Corruption
11. Industries
- Government (Law Enforcement)
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R v Bibi | N/A | Yes | [1980] 1 WLR 1193 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding the need for sentencing courts to ensure that custodial sentences are as short as possible. |
| Mohamed Abdullah Ang Swee Kang v PP | Malaysian Supreme Court | Yes | [1988] 1 MLJ 167 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the principle that a deterrent sentence should not be longer than warranted by the facts of the offence. |
| Xia Qin Lai v PP | N/A | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 343 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principle of deterrence in sentencing. |
| Krishan Chand v PP | N/A | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR 291 | Singapore | Cited regarding the reduction of sentences that far exceed the tariffs set for the offences. |
| Hassan bin Ahmad v PP | N/A | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR 791 | Singapore | Cited as a similar case involving a police officer convicted of corruption for receiving monies from Chua. |
| Fong Ser Joo William v PP | N/A | Yes | [2000] 4 SLR 77 | Singapore | Cited as a similar case involving a police inspector convicted of corruption for receiving monies from Chua. |
| PP v Mok Ping Wuen Maurice | N/A | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 138 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principle that consistency in sentencing is a desirable goal but not an inflexible one. |
| Yong Siew Soon v PP | N/A | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 933 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principle that consistency in sentencing is a desirable goal but not an inflexible one. |
| Yusof bin A Samad v PP | N/A | Yes | [2000] 4 SLR 58 | Singapore | Cited as a case with a different factual matrix involving a police corporal convicted of corruption. |
| Sim Yeow Seng v PP | N/A | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR 44 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principle that a sentencing court should have regard to all of the accused's antecedents up to the moment of sentencing. |
| Tan Koon Swan v PP | N/A | Yes | [1986] SLR 126 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principles on which an appellate court would interfere with the sentence imposed by the lower court. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241) s 6(a) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224) s 218 | Singapore |
| Moneylenders Act (Cap 188) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Corruption
- Gratification
- Deterrent sentence
- Police officer
- Illegal moneylending
- Abuse of power
- Breach of trust
15.2 Keywords
- Corruption
- Police
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Prevention of Corruption Act | 95 |
| Sentencing | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Corruption | 90 |
| Money and moneylenders | 70 |
| Law Enforcement | 60 |
| Abuse of Power | 50 |
| Guarantee | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Corruption
- Sentencing