What sentencing issue did Public Prosecutor v S Iswaran examine?

In [2024] SGHC 251, Vincent Hoong J examined the appropriate sentencing approach where a public servant obtains a valuable thing from a person concerned in proceedings or business connected with that public servant's official functions, an offence under s 165 of the Penal Code injuring public-institution integrity.

Which court and judge decided Public Prosecutor v S Iswaran?

The case was decided by Vincent Hoong J in the General Division of the High Court in Criminal Case No 50 of 2024. It was heard on 24 September and 3 October 2024, with judgment reserved to 3 October 2024, addressing offences including under s 165 of the Penal Code.

[2024] SGHC 251 — PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v S Iswaran

3 October 2024

Case summary

Public Prosecutor v S Iswaran [2024] SGHC 251

General Division of the High Court / Criminal Case No 50 of 2024

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Outcome: The General Division of the High Court sentenced the accused to an aggregate of 12 months’ imprisonment for 5 charges under sections 165 and 204A(a) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) and Penal Code 1871 (2020 Rev Ed).

Pertinent and significant points of the judgment

• Trust and confidence in public institutions were the bedrock of effective governance, which could all too easily be undermined by the appearance that an individual public servant had fallen below the standards of integrity and accountability. This could in turn have a detrimental impact on the discharge of the Government’s functions: at [1].

• This case called for a consideration of the appropriate sentencing approach where a public servant committed the offence of obtaining a valuable thing from a person concerned in proceedings or business transacted by that public servant or having a connection with that public servant’s official functions. The gravamen of the offence under s 165 of the Penal Code was the injury to the trust in and integrity of public institutions which resulted where public servants accepted or obtained pecuniary benefits from a person or any associate in circumstances where the interests of the person or associate called into question that public servant’s integrity and loyalty. These interests could, for example, be interests relating to the outcomes of legal proceedings or interests in business transactions with public institutions: at [2].

• There was no requirement under s 165 of the Penal Code that the received benefits constituted a motive or reward bearing some connection with the public servant’s official acts, the exercise of his official functions or the rendering of a service or disservice to any person. It sufficed that the public servant knew that the giver of the valuable thing had been, was or was likely to be concerned in any proceedings or business transacted or about to be transacted by him or having any connection with his official functions or those of his superior. In the alternative, this knowledge could consist of a knowledge that the giver of the valuable thing was interested in or related to the person so concerned: at [68].

• Offences under sections 161–165 of the Penal Code dealt specifically with bribery and other forms of corrupt practices involving public servants and compared to the offences in the Prevention of Corruption Act, were more targeted in scope toward tackling the various forms of bribery of, and the taking of bribes by, public servants: at [69].

• Persons who held public office were conferred status and power by virtue of such office for the purpose of serving the public interest, and the obtaining of gifts from persons who had a connection with a public servant’s official duties was an abuse of such power: at [75].

• Given the object of s 165 of the Penal Code of safeguarding the integrity of public institutions and the public interest, general deterrence assumed centre stage in sentencing. The lack of prevalence of an offence could well be regarded as a sign of the health of the Government’s processes and protocols but it could not detract from the necessity for the courts to signal their disapprobation of serious offences that threatened the public interest: at [76].

• The higher the office held by the offender as a public servant, the higher his level of culpability. Holders of high office ordinarily wielded a greater degree of potential influence over significant business transactions or proceedings and had a larger resultant impact on the public interest. Further, such persons set the tone for public servants in conducting themselves in accordance with high standards of integrity, and had to be expected to avoid any perception that they were susceptible to influence by pecuniary benefits. Persons who accepted appointments to high office took on the heavy responsibilities of their office along with the associated power and status, and should generally be regarded as having acted with greater culpability in abusing their position to obtain valuable gifts: at [90].

• An offender’s awareness that the giver was motivated by a desire to cultivate his goodwill and loyalty would also be a relevant factor in sentencing. The decision to obtain a valuable item in such circumstances, where the offender knew of a close connection between the giver’s interest and his official functions, was a marker of a more culpable state of mind. This consideration could be relevant where the giver had a significant interest, of which the offender was aware, in business undertaken by the offender by virtue of his official capacity. In other words, the larger the financial or personal interest of the giver known to the offender, the more culpable the offender was in receiving the benefit. This was because such knowledge of the giver’s significant motivation in cultivating and purchasing the offender’s patronage signified a greater abuse by the offender of the trust reposed in the integrity of his office: at [91].

• The value of the benefit obtained was relevant to sentencing, as the greater the pecuniary benefit obtained by the offender, the greater the tendency for injury to trust and confidence in public institutions. However, the court should eschew an over-emphasis on the value of the item. It was relevant in sentencing only insofar as it was sufficiently significant as to indicate a higher level of damage to the public interest: at [93]–[94].

• In relation to the 6th and 26th charges, the accused was a Minister and Chairman of the F1 Steering Committee. As a Minister, he occupied the highest level of executive office. This placed him in a position to wield great influence over transactions of wide public interest. Further, the accused as Chairman of the F1 Steering Committee oversaw the Singapore F1 and was the Government’s chief negotiator with SGP on business matters relating to the Singapore F1. In committing the offence stated in the 6th charge, the accused had acted with deliberation insofar as he had made a specific request for the valuable items. Similarly, in committing the offence stated in the 26th charge, the accused also acted with deliberation. He took urgent personal leave to facilitate his availability for the Doha Trip: at [96] and [99]–[100].

• In relation to the 29th and the 33rd charges, the accused’s culpability was heightened by the critical role that he assumed as the Minister of Transport. As Minister for Transport, the accused was responsible for the LTA, which was involved in construction projects relating to the mass rapid transit system: at [97].

• Even if there was no evidence that the accused had exercised his influence over the connected business transactions, namely, the Singapore F1 Contracts and the T315 Contract, in favour of OBS or LKS, the accused’s culpability could not be considered low given the accused’s experience and standing as a Minister. When the offences were committed, the accused had been a Minister for six to ten years. In his position, the accused’s culpability was higher for placing himself in a position of susceptibility to influence by pecuniary benefits conferred by persons with interests connected to his office: at [98].

• Conversely, with respect to the 29th and 33rd charges, there was no evidence that the accused had acted with premeditation or deliberation in accepting the gifts given by LKS: at [103].

• At the time of committing the offence in the 6th charge, the accused was also responsible, as the Minister (Industry) in the MTI, for the STB. At that time, the accused also knew that OBS was concerned in business transacted between SGP and the STB relating to the setting aside of a certain number of complimentary tickets to the Singapore F1 race to be distributed free of charge for the purpose of its promotion. When the offences stated in the 6th and 26th charges were committed, the accused was aware that OBS was concerned in business transactions that formed part of a long-running business relationship between the STB and SGP for the promotion, hosting and staging of the annual Singapore F1 race. This long-standing business relationship had lasted from 2008 to 2023 (save for 2020 and 2021 when the Singapore F1 race was not held due to the COVID-19 pandemic): at [101].

• The charges which were taken into consideration for sentencing revealed the scale, extent and repetition of the accused’s offending over a significant duration of time. They therefore constituted a culpability-increasing factor as regards the 6th, 26th, 29th and 33rd charges: at [129].

• The accused’s public service and contributions to Singapore were at best a neutral factor in sentencing: at [130].

• The harm done to the public interest, in the form of damage to trust and confidence in public institutions, was unlikely to be adequately remedied by accused’s voluntary disgorgement of his benefits. It was also significant that the accused had simultaneously made public statements rejecting the allegations in the charges as false and asserting his innocence: at [134].

• The court rejected the Defence’s submission that the accused had indicated an intention to plead guilty to the remaining charges as soon as possible. The accused had consistently maintained that he would be claiming trial to all the charges, the majority of which were brought under s 165 of the Penal Code (32 out of 35 charges prior to the amendment of the 25th and 26th charges). It was open to the accused to indicate at an earlier stage of proceedings that he intended to plead guilty to the charges other than the 25th and 26th charges, in which case it would have been open to the Defence to apply for the remaining charges to be dealt with after the conclusion of his trial on the 25th and 26th charges: at [144].

• A 30% reduction of the sentence for the 26th charge and a 10% reduction in the remaining sentences (for the 6th, 27th, 29th and 33rd charges) was appropriate on account of the accused’s plea of guilty: at [147].

• An aggregate imprisonment term of 12 months would be commensurate with the accused’s culpability, having regard to the totality of his offending. The aggregate imprisonment term would also not be crushing, having regard to the accused’s prospects and past records. The court had considered certain aggravating factors in calibrating the individual sentences. These included: (a) the similarity of the charges taken into consideration to the proceeded charges under s 165 of the Penal Code; (b) the total duration of the accused’s offending; (c) the overall harm to the public interest and trust and confidence in public institutions; and (d) the high office occupied by the accused. The court took special care, therefore, not to double count these factors against the accused in assessing the proportionality of the aggregate sentence to his overall offending: [155].

• In considering the appropriate sentence, the Court duly considered the respective positions of the Prosecution and the Defence on the appropriate sentence but was ultimately unable to agree with both the positions taken. The court was of the view that it was appropriate to impose a sentence in excess of both parties’ positions. Adopting either of the parties’ respective submissions would have resulted in a manifestly inadequate sentence: at [156] and [160].

• The sentences imposed are summarised in the table below (with the imprisonment terms ordered to run consecutively emphasised in bold):

Charge	Details	Sentence	Consecutive / concurrent
6th charge	In September 2017, obtained ten Green Room tickets to the Singapore F1 2017 race with a value of S$42,265 from OBS.	Six months’ imprisonment	Consecutive
26th charge	In December 2022, obtained the Singapore-Doha Flight, Doha Hotel Stay and Doha-Singapore Flight with a total value of S$20,848.03 from OBS.	Three months and three weeks’ imprisonment	Concurrent
27th charge	On or around 25 May 2023, made payment of S$5,700 to Singapore GP for the cost of the Doha-Singapore Flight.	Four months’ imprisonment	Consecutive
29th charge	In January 2022, obtained the 14 Whisky and Wine Bottles with a total value of about S$3,255.75 from LKS.	Two months’ imprisonment	Consecutive
33rd charge	In June 2022, obtained a Brompton T-Line bicycle with a value of S$7,907.50 from LKS.	Three months’ imprisonment	Concurrent
Aggregate sentence: 12 months’ imprisonment

Background

1 Mr S Iswaran (the “accused”) was formerly a Minister of the Government of Singapore (the “Government”). From 2015 to 2022, as a public servant in that capacity, he obtained for himself various valuable things without consideration from Mr Ong Beng Seng (“OBS”) and Mr Lum Kok Seng (“LKS”). He did so despite knowing that they were concerned in business transacted which had a connection with his official functions: at [4].

2 The accused pleaded guilty to one charge under s 165 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed), three charges under s 165 of the Penal Code 1871 (2020 Rev Ed) and one charge under s 204A(a) of the Penal Code 1871 (2020 Rev Ed). The accused also admitted to 30 other charges under s 165 of the Penal Code and gave his consent for these charges to be taken into consideration for sentencing: at [5].

Facts relating to the 6th charge under s 165 of the Penal Code

3 Sometime in or before September 2017, the Deputy Chairman of Singapore GP Pte Ltd (“SGP”), Colin Syn (“Colin”), asked the accused how many tickets he would require for the Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix (the “Singapore F1”) 2017 race. Colin did so pursuant to an earlier standing instruction from OBS to him to allocate complimentary tickets to the Singapore F1 race to the accused. The accused informed Colin that he would require ten “Green Room” tickets to the Singapore F1 2017 race: at [17].

4 The ten Green Room tickets were delivered to the accused. The value of each Green Room ticket was S$4,226.50 and the total value of the ten Green Room tickets was S$42,265. The accused distributed these tickets to his family, friends and others to attend the Singapore F1 2017 race. The accused did not pay for the ten Green Room tickets. He also did not declare to the Government that he had obtained them from OBS. The accused knew at the time that OBS was concerned in the performance of the 2012 Restatement of the Facilitation Agreement of 22 September 2012, which had a connection with the accused’s official functions as Minister and Chairman of the F1 Steering Committee: at [20]–[22].

Facts relating to the 26th charge under s 165 of the Penal Code

5 Sometime on or before 6 December 2022, OBS asked if the accused would like to join him on a trip to Qatar (the “Doha Trip”). OBS informed the accused that he would be travelling to Qatar on his private jet, that the accused would be going as his guest and that he would look after the accused. The accused accepted OBS’s invitation but stated that he needed to return to Singapore by 11 December 2022. In response, OBS informed the accused that he would arrange for the accused to travel back to Singapore on a commercial flight. The accused accepted OBS’s offer: at [23].

6 On 10 December 2022, the accused travelled from Singapore to Doha, Qatar on OBS’s private jet (the “Singapore-Doha Flight”). The approximate value of the Singapore-Doha Flight was US$7,700 or S$10,410.40. In Doha, the accused stayed for one night at the Four Seasons Hotel Doha (the “Doha Hotel Stay”). The value of the Doha Hotel Stay was S$4,737.63. This was paid for by SGP on OBS’s instructions. On 11 December 2022, the accused travelled from Doha to Singapore on a business class flight (the “Doha-Singapore Flight”). The value of the Doha-Singapore Flight was S$5,700. This was likewise paid for by SGP on OBS’s instructions.: at [24]–[26].

7 The accused did not pay for the Singapore-Doha Flight or the Doha Hotel Stay. He likewise did not pay for the Doha-Singapore Flight before or during the Doha Trip. The accused also did not declare to the Government that he had obtained the Singapore-Doha Flight, Doha Hotel Stay or Doha-Singapore Flight from OBS. The accused knew at the time that OBS was concerned in the performance of the Facilitation Agreement for the Singapore Grand Prix 2022 to 2028, which had a connection with the accused’s official functions as Minister and Chairman of the F1 Steering Committee: at [27]–[28].

Facts relating to the 27th charge under s 204A(a) of the Penal Code

8 Sometime between 18 and 23 May 2023, OBS informed the accused that the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (the “CPIB”) had had seized the flight manifest of the Singapore-Doha Flight in the course of its investigations into a separate matter. The following day, the accused asked OBS to have SGP bill him for the expenses related to the Doha Trip, including the Doha-Singapore Flight. OBS agreed to this. On or around 25 May 2023, the accused made payment for the Doha-Singapore Flight by issuing a cheque to SGP for S$5,700. This was an act with a tendency to obstruct the course of justice because it made it less likely that the accused would be investigated by the CPIB in relation to the Doha Trip. Further, the accused knew at the time that this act was likely to obstruct the course of justice: at [30]–[33].

Facts relating to the 29th charge under s 165 of the Penal Code

9 Sometime in late 2021, the accused asked Lum Kok Seng (“LKS”) to help him source for whisky and red wine. On 14 November 2021, the accused sent a screenshot of a bottle of Gordon & MacPhail Caol Ila whisky to LKS via WhatsApp message, asking LKS to check with his regular supplier what he thought about it. LKS replied that he “will check with [his] supplier and revert”: at [36].

10 On 7 January 2022, LKS informed the accused that he had purchased two bottles of Gordon & MacPhail Caol Ila whisky and would send them to the accused along with a batch of red wine. The accused acknowledged this and thanked LKS. Sometime in January 2022, LKS arranged for 14 bottles of whisky and wine with an approximate total value of S$3,255.75 to be delivered to the accused’s residence: at [37]–[38].

11 The accused did not pay for the 14 bottles of whisky and wine. He also did not declare to the Government that he had obtained them from LKS. He knew at the time that LKS was concerned in the performance of the T315 contract for “Addition and Alteration Works to Existing Tanah Merah Station and Existing Viaducts” (the “T315 Contract”) which had a connection with the accused’s official functions as Minister for Transport: at [39]–[40].

Facts relating to the 33rd charge under s 165 of the Penal Code

12 Sometime in June 2022, the accused obtained a Brompton T-Line bicycle with a value of S$7,907.50 from LKS. The accused did not pay for the Brompton T-Line bicycle. He also did not declare to the Government that he had obtained it from LKS: at [42]–[43].

13 The accused knew at the time that LKS was concerned in the performance of the T315 Contract, which had a connection with the accused’s official functions as Minister for Transport: at [44].

Disgorgement of benefits

14 On 23 September 2024, the accused fully disgorged to the Accountant-General his financial gain from his offences under s 165 of the Penal Code, including those underlying the charges taken into consideration, in the amount of S$380,305.95. This excluded the value of the properties seized by the CPIB in the course of its investigations as well as the value of the Doha-Singapore Flight for which the accused had already made payment to SGP: at [47].

15 The accused had earlier voluntarily returned all monies that he had received by way of salary as a Minister and allowances as an MP from the commencement of the CPIB’s investigations in July 2023: at [48].

This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s judgment. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s judgment.

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v S Iswaran

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (1)

Parties (2)

Case Significance

Summary

What sentencing issue did Public Prosecutor v S Iswaran examine?

Which court and judge decided Public Prosecutor v S Iswaran?

Statutes Cited

Cases Cited (28)

Cited By (1)

Referenced in

Statutes interpreted in this judgment

Judgment