Pigg v Public Prosecutor: Corruption Charges & Admissibility of Evidence

Derek Gordon Pigg appealed to the General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore against his conviction on eight charges under s 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) for corruptly accepting gratification from Yong Hock Guan Dennis. The High Court, presided over by See Kee Oon J, heard the appeal and a related Criminal Motion to adduce further evidence. The court dismissed both the appeal against conviction and the appeal against sentence.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Derek Gordon Pigg appeals against conviction on corruption charges. The court considers admissibility of new evidence and sentencing.

1.7 Decision Date

11 January 2022

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Respondent	Government Agency	Appeal dismissed	Won	David Koh of Attorney-General’s Chambers Janice See of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Pigg, Derek Gordon	Appellant, Applicant	Individual	Appeal dismissed	Lost	Wong Hin Pkin Wendell of Drew & Napier LLC Andrew Chua Ruiming of Drew & Napier LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
See Kee Oon	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
David Koh	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Janice See	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Wong Hin Pkin Wendell	Drew & Napier LLC
Andrew Chua Ruiming	Drew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

The appellant was convicted on eight charges under s 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed).
The appellant was a manager of global strategic sourcing for the Asia Pacific region at Transocean Eastern Pte Ltd.
Yong was the senior sales manager of Mid-Continent Tubular Pte Ltd, which was Transocean’s supplier.
Transocean purchased tubular goods and services from MCT on eight occasions.
Yong pleaded guilty to 15 charges, two of which were charges under s 6(b) read with s 29(a) of the PCA.
The appellant was charged with eight counts of corruptly accepting gratification from Yong.
Yong testified that the appellant had suggested building in a kickback into each transaction between MCT and Transocean.
The bribes were paid to the appellant in cash on eight occasions.
The appellant’s case was that Yong was lying and had pocketed all the alleged bribes for himself.

5. Formal Citations

Pigg, Derek Gordon v Public Prosecutor and another matter, , [2022] SGHC 5
Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public Prosecutor, , [2020] 1 SLR 984
Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor, , [2011] 3 SLR 1205
Lim Hong Liang v Public Prosecutor, , [2021] 5 SLR 626
Lim Hong Liang v Public Prosecutor, , [2020] 5 SLR 1015
Public Prosecutor v Marzuki bin Ahmad and another appeal, , [2014] 4 SLR 623
Public Prosecutor v Tan Kok Ming Michael and other appeals, , [2019] 5 SLR 926
Public Prosecutor v Yue Roger Jr, , [2019] 3 SLR 749
Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi v Public Prosecutor, , [2021] 1 SLR 67
Lee Chez Kee v Public Prosecutor, , [2008] 3 SLR(R) 447
Public Prosecutor v GCK and another matter, , [2020] 1 SLR 486
Public Prosecutor v Somwang Phatthanasaeng, , [1990] 2 SLR(R) 414

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2015-11-01	Yong was convicted and sentenced.
2017-01-01	Appellant was charged with eight counts of corruptly accepting gratification from Yong.
2018-10-01	Charges against the appellant were amended.
2020-03-31	Court of Appeal released its written grounds of decision in Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public Prosecutor [2020] 1 SLR 984.
2020-12-04	District Judge’s written grounds of decision was released.
2021-01-05	Counsel for the appellant wrote to the Prosecution requesting copies of the Statements.
2021-02-09	Prosecution disclosed the Statements to the appellant.
2021-03-29	Appellant filed the Criminal Motion to adduce the Statements as further evidence on appeal.
2021-06-29	Both parties filed written submissions for the Criminal Motion and the substantive appeal.
2021-07-09	Court heard both parties on whether the Statements ought to be adduced as further evidence on appeal.
2021-07-26	Court informed the parties of its decision to take additional evidence from Yong.
2021-08-30	Yong underwent further cross-examination.
2021-08-31	Yong underwent further cross-examination.
2021-10-01	Appellant and the Prosecution then put forward revised submissions in the Magistrate’s Appeal based on the additional evidence taken.
2022-01-12	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Kadar disclosure obligations
- Outcome: The Prosecution’s omission to disclose the Statements (except for the 3rd CPIB Statement) at the proceedings below constituted a Kadar breach.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2011] 3 SLR 1205
  - [2020] 1 SLR 984
Admissibility of further evidence on appeal
- Outcome: The court allowed additional evidence from Yong to be taken pursuant to s 392(1) of the CPC.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [1954] 1 WLR 1489
Whether the appellant received bribe monies from Yong
- Outcome: The court found that Yong’s credit had not been impeached and that Yong did not have a motive to lie and falsely implicate the appellant.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Impeachment of witness's credit
  - Motive to falsely implicate
- Related Cases:
  - [1998] 2 SLR(R) 211
  - [2000] 2 SLR(R) 904
  - [1990] 2 SLR(R) 414
  - [2021] 1 SLR 67
  - [2008] 3 SLR(R) 447
  - [2020] 1 SLR 486
  - [2019] 3 SLR 749
  - [2003] 4 SLR(R) 374
Whether the appellant accepted the gratification with guilty knowledge
- Outcome: The court agreed with the DJ’s finding that there was evidence showing that the appellant accepted the gratification with guilty knowledge.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2014] 4 SLR 1264
Whether the sentence imposed by the DJ was manifestly excessive
- Outcome: The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Parity of sentencing
  - One-transaction rule
  - Inordinate delay in prosecution
- Related Cases:
  - [2014] 4 SLR 623
  - [2019] 5 SLR 926
  - [2018] SGDC 230

8. Remedies Sought

Acquittal on all eight charges
Reduction in sentence

9. Cause of Actions

Corruption

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Law
Corruption
Appeals

11. Industries

Oil and Gas

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Public Prosecutor v Yong Hock Guan Dennis	District Court	Yes	[2016] SGDC 12	Singapore	Cited for the background facts of Yong's conviction for giving bribes to the appellant and his sentence.
Public Prosecutor v Derek Gordon Pigg	District Court	Yes	[2020] SGDC 278	Singapore	Cited for the District Judge's findings and reasoning in convicting the appellant.
Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2020] 1 SLR 984	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the Prosecution is under a duty to disclose a material witness’s statement to the accused.
Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 3 SLR 1205	Singapore	Cited for the Prosecution's disclosure obligations to the Defence.
Ladd v Marshall	Not Available	Yes	[1954] 1 WLR 1489	England and Wales	Cited for the test to take further evidence or direct the trial court to take further evidence.
Lim Hong Liang v Public Prosecutor	Not Available	Yes	[2021] 5 SLR 626	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a Kadar breach does not automatically cause a conviction to be overturned.
Mia Mukles v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2017] SGHC 252	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a Kadar breach does not automatically cause a conviction to be overturned.
Kwang Boon Keong Peter v Public Prosecutor	Not Available	Yes	[1998] 2 SLR(R) 211	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a witness’s credit and credibility must be closely scrutinised in the light of all the evidence before the court.
Loganatha Venkatesan and others v Public Prosecutor	Not Available	Yes	[2000] 2 SLR(R) 904	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a witness’s credit and credibility must be closely scrutinised in the light of all the evidence before the court.
Lim Hong Liang v Public Prosecutor	Not Available	Yes	[2020] 5 SLR 1015	Singapore	Cited for the observations that the Statements were allowed to be adduced not as evidence of the truth of their contents but for the purpose of giving Yong an opportunity to explain the inconsistencies under further cross-examination.
Public Prosecutor v Leng Kah Poh	Not Available	Yes	[2014] 4 SLR 1264	Singapore	Cited for the requirements to sustain a conviction under s 6(a) of the PCA.
Public Prosecutor v Somwang Phatthanasaeng	Not Available	Yes	[1990] 2 SLR(R) 414	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the impeachment of a witness’s credit does not necessarily entail a total rejection of all his evidence.
Muthusamy v Public Prosecutor	Not Available	Yes	[1948] MLJ 57	Malaysia	Cited for the three-step procedure for impeachment.
Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi v Public Prosecutor	Not Available	Yes	[2021] 1 SLR 67	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a trier of fact must give careful consideration to the witness’ lies as well as to his or her explanation (or lack thereof) for those lies in determining his creditworthiness.
Lee Chez Kee v Public Prosecutor	Not Available	Yes	[2008] 3 SLR(R) 447	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a statement that is made against the interests of its maker is inherently more reliable.
Public Prosecutor v GCK and another matter	Not Available	Yes	[2020] 1 SLR 486	Singapore	Cited for the principle that it is for the Defence to first establish sufficient evidence of a motive to make a false allegation.
Public Prosecutor v Yue Roger Jr	Not Available	Yes	[2019] 3 SLR 749	Singapore	Cited for the principle that it is for the Defence to first establish sufficient evidence of a motive to make a false allegation.
Goh Han Heng v Public Prosecutor	Not Available	Yes	[2003] 4 SLR(R) 374	Singapore	Cited for the principle that it is for the Defence to first establish sufficient evidence of a motive to make a false allegation.
Public Prosecutor v Lee Seng Kee	District Court	Yes	[2018] SGDC 230	Singapore	Cited for the sentencing discount given on account of delay in the prosecution of the case.
Public Prosecutor v Marzuki bin Ahmad and another appeal	Not Available	Yes	[2014] 4 SLR 623	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the principle of parity of sentencing as between the giver and the recipient of gratification cannot be viewed or applied as an inflexible and rigid rule.
Public Prosecutor v Tan Kok Ming Michael and other appeals	High Court	Yes	[2019] 5 SLR 926	Singapore	Cited for the principle that receiving parties who solicit gratification are more culpable.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 6(a)	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 392	Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 157(c)	Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 147(1)	Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 147(2)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Prevention of Corruption Act
Gratification
Bribe
Corruption
Kadar breach
Impeachment
Guilty knowledge
Inordinate delay

15.2 Keywords

Corruption
Prevention of Corruption Act
Criminal Law
Singapore
Appeal
Evidence
Bribery

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Prevention of Corruption Act	95
Criminal Law	90
Sentencing	90
Criminal Procedure	90
Appeals	90
Evidence	60
Administrative Law	30
Contract Law	10

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Corruption
Evidence
Appeals