Cher Ting Ting v Public Prosecutor: Bail Forfeiture, Surety's Duties, & Criminal Procedure

Cher Ting Ting appealed to the High Court of Singapore against the District Judge's decision to forfeit her $60,000 surety bond in full after her brother, Albin Cher Koh Kiong, failed to attend court. Chan Seng Onn J dismissed the appeal, finding that Cher Ting Ting had failed to exercise reasonable due diligence in ensuring her brother's attendance and that no exceptional circumstances warranted a departure from the default position of full forfeiture. The case concerns criminal procedure and the duties of a surety.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed; the District Judge was correct to order forfeiture of the entire bond amount of $60,000.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding full forfeiture of a surety bond. The court examines the law on forfeiture and restates the method of analysis.

1.7 Decision Date

25 January 2017

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Cher Ting Ting	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost
Public Prosecutor	Respondent	Government Agency	Judgment upheld	Won	Asoka Markandu, Stephanie Chew

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chan Seng Onn	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Asoka Markandu	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Stephanie Chew	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Justin Chan	Shook Lin & Bok LLP

4. Facts

The accused faced charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Penal Code.
The surety, Cher Ting Ting, stood bail for her brother, Albin Cher Koh Kiong, for $60,000.
The surety signed an "Acknowledgement of Duties as Surety" form, outlining her responsibilities.
The accused failed to attend court on 30 March 2016, and the surety was also not present.
The District Judge forfeited the bail sum of $60,000 and issued an arrest warrant against the accused.
The surety stated she did not contact the accused and relied on their mother to do so.
The surety did not know where the accused was staying or who he was with.

5. Formal Citations

Cher Ting Ting v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9110 of 2016/01, [2017] SGHC 13
Public Prosecutor v Cher Ting Ting, , [2016] SGDC 146

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2015-10-02	Cher Ting Ting stood bail for her brother, Albin Cher Koh Kiong, for $60,000.
2016-03-30	Albin Cher Koh Kiong failed to attend court; Cher Ting Ting was also not present.
2016-03-30	Bail sum of $60,000 was forfeited; an arrest warrant was issued against Albin Cher Koh Kiong.
2016-05-11	Cher Ting Ting appeared in State Courts to show cause as to why payment of the $60,000 should not be enforced.
2016-11-04	Judgment reserved.
2017-01-26	Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

Forfeiture of Bail Bond
- Outcome: The court held that the surety had not shown sufficient cause against forfeiture and that no exceptional circumstances existed to warrant a departure from the default position of full forfeiture.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Surety's due diligence
  - Exceptional circumstances warranting departure from full forfeiture
  - Degree of culpability of the surety
  - Surety's financial circumstances
  - Impact of forfeiture on surety's dependents

8. Remedies Sought

Appeal against the decision to forfeit the entire bond amount

9. Cause of Actions

No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Law
Appeals

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
R v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Pearson	Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court	Yes	[1976] 1 WLR 511	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that forfeiture of a bond is not a penalty for misconduct.
R v Tottenham Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Riccardi	Tottenham Magistrates’ Court	Yes	(1977) 66 Cr App R 150	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that forfeiture of a bond is not a fine or punishment.
R v Waltham Forest Justices, ex parte Parfrey	Waltham Forest Justices	Yes	(1980) 2 Cr App Rep (S) 208	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a surety's obligation is a very serious one and the burden of satisfying a court that the full sum should not be forfeit is a very heavy one.
Public Prosecutor v Ram Ghanshamdas Mahtani and another action	High Court	Yes	[2003] 1 SLR(R) 517	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the obligation which comes with standing bail for an accused is not merely a moral one, but has serious legal consequences attached with it.
R v Southampton Justices, ex parte Corker	Southampton Justices	Yes	(1976) 120 SJ 214	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the court was not persuaded that this was an exceptional case where the prima facie position should be modified.
R v York Crown Court, ex parte Coleman and How	York Crown Court	Yes	(1988) 86 Cr App R 151	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the standard in these bail cases has been shown by the authorities to be a heavy one.
Loh Kim Chiang v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[1992] 2 SLR(R) 48	Singapore	Cited regarding the two-stage analysis the court will consider the question of forfeiture.
Re Ling Yew Huat & Anor	High Court	Yes	[1990] 2 MLJ 124	Malaysia	Cited regarding the two-stage analysis the court will consider the question of forfeiture.
Valliamai v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[1962] MLJ 280	Malaysia	Cited regarding the two-stage analysis the court will consider the question of forfeiture.
Royaya bte Abdullah & Anor v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2005] 2 MLJ 670	Malaysia	Cited for the notion of sufficient cause.
Public Prosecutor v Mahadi bin Mohamed Daud	High Court	Yes	[1999] 3 SLR(R) 681	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the respondent had not shown sufficient cause because the respondent had not taken any steps to contact the accused beyond sending a single facsimile to the accused one day before the date the accused was due to return to Singapore for a hearing scheduled on the next day.
Yap Yin Kok v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[1987] SLR(R) 484	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the surety had not shown cause and ordered the bond to be forfeited in full.
Public Prosecutor v An Wei	District Court	Yes	[2014] SGDC 182	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a surety's duties are personal to the surety.
Public Prosecutor v Ho Boon Lim	District Court	Yes	[2003] SGDC 90	Singapore	Cited for the principle that when the accused goes missing, the making of a police report by the surety, without more, will not be sufficient to excuse the surety.
Public Prosecutor v Pililis Georgios	District Court	Yes	[2013] SGDC 142	Singapore	Cited for the principle that when the accused goes missing, passively waiting and hoping for the accused to return does not amount to compliance with a surety’s obligations.
Public Prosecutor v Rahilah Binte Kifley	District Court	Yes	[2005] SGDC 210	Singapore	Cited for the principle that it is relevant to consider whether the surety expended effort to look for the accused after the accused has gone missing.
Public Prosecutor v Chou Tai Chuan & Anor	High Court	Yes	[1988] 1 MLJ 511	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that where the accused is travelling, a surety’s omission to obtain from the accused details that would allow the surety to contact or locate him is demonstrative of negligence on the part of the surety.
Public Prosecutor v Wang Choong Tsuey	District Court	Yes	[2009] SGDC 212	Singapore	Cited for the principle that if the surety turns a blind eye toward suspicious circumstances that indicate that the accused had the intention to abscond, the surety will have failed to exercise due diligence.
Ramlee & Anor v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[1969] 1 MLJ 42	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that it may be relevant for the court’s consideration that the surety had taken sufficient steps on previous occasions to ensure the accused’s attendance in court and the accused had so attended.
R v Knightsbridge Crown Court, ex parte Newton	Knightsbridge Crown Court	Yes	[1980] Cr LR 715	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that entering into suretyship is an extremely serious matter not to be lightly undertaken.
R v Uxbridge Justices, ex parte Heward-Mills	Uxbridge Justices	Yes	[1983] 1 All ER 530	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the full recognisance should be forfeited, unless it appears fair and just that a lesser sum should be forfeited or none at all.
R v Southampton Justices, ex parte Green	Southampton Justices	Yes	[1975] 3 WLR 277	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the justices ought to consider to what extent the surety was at fault.
Public Prosecutor v Yang Yin	High Court	Yes	[2015] 2 SLR 78	Singapore	Cited for the explanation about the “real pull of bail”.
R v Crown Court at Ipswich, ex p Reddington	Crown Court at Ipswich	Yes	[1981] Crim LR 618	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that courts considering the estreatment of recognisance must consider not only the extent of the surety’s resources and the ability to meet what is in effect a financial penalty in those circumstances.
Public Prosecutor v Suhaili Binti Rahmat	District Court	Yes	[2010] SGDC 199	Singapore	Cited for the fact that the court in Suhaili must have taken into account, as a factor militating in favour of reduced forfeiture, the fact that the surety came with the accused for the show cause hearing which enabled the court to direct the police officers to take the accused immediately into custody.
Sabri Bin Suboh v Public Prosecutor	District Court	Yes	[2001] SGDC 57	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court took into consideration the fact that, after the surety learnt of the accused’s disappearance, he went to Johor Bahru and brought the accused back to Singapore.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Surety
Forfeiture
Bail
Recognizance
Due diligence
Culpability
Exceptional circumstances
Show cause
Bond
Estreatment

15.2 Keywords

Surety
Bail
Forfeiture
Criminal Procedure
Singapore
High Court
Appeal
Due Diligence
Criminal Law

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure
Bail
Surety
Forfeiture

17. Areas of Law

Criminal Procedure
Sentencing
Bail
Forfeiture