SGHOUSING.COM 新加坡房地产网

Property agent convicted of perjury filed four ‘groundless’ bids to quash conviction.

A HIGH Court judge has put a stop to the persistent attempts by a property agent to quash his criminal conviction for perjury.

Despite having served his jail term after exhausting all legitimate avenues of appeal, Mr Tee Kok Boon has been trying again and again to get the courts to re-hear his case.

Between March 2006 and April last year, he filed no fewer than four court applications - known as criminal motions and criminal revisions - all of which were dismissed.

Finally, in July last year, in a rare move, the Attorney-General sought a High Court order to restrain Mr Tee from filing any further court action without the permission of the High Court.

Solicitor-General Walter Woon, representing the Attorney-General, had applied to Justice Woo Bih Li for the order in November on grounds that Mr Tee has instituted vexatious legal proceedings ‘habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground’.

Mr Tee’s assigned lawyer, Mr Gregory Vijayendran, argued that this did not apply to criminal proceedings.

In his 44-page written judgment on Friday, Justice Woo agreed with the Attorney-General and barred Mr Tee from launching any more criminal legal proceedings relating to his conviction.

Mr Tee’s legal problems stemmed from a dispute with a client and her husband over commissions payable for a tenancy deal in 2001.

This led him to be investigated for giving false evidence at a Small Claims Tribunal hearing. He was found guilty by a district court and jailed 10 months in December 2004.

In June 2005, he appealed against the conviction. He also applied to introduce fresh evidence. He claimed he had proof that the husband fabricated evidence - in the form of a newspaper advertisement - during the trial.

His case was dismissed by then-Chief Justice Yong Pung How, which meant he had no further appeal avenues.

After he was released from prison, Mr Tee did not stop trying to ‘clear his name’.

In March 2006, he applied for the case to be heard by the Court of Appeal on the basis of important issues of law. This was thrown out.

He also sought a revision of his conviction and sentence. This was dismissed by Justice Tay Yong Kwang in August 2006.

Undeterred, he filed another application to review his conviction and to get the Attorney-General to investigate the alleged fabrication. This was dismissed by Justice V. K. Rajah in March last year. The following month, he had another go, filing a High Court application for his conviction to be quashed.

Apart from court action, Mr Tee also took other steps.

He started a private prosecution against the husband regarding the advertisement, but the police closed the case.

Dissatisfied, he wrote to the Attorney-General, requesting that he be allowed to prosecute the husband, but this was rejected.

In his judgment, Justice Woo said of Mr Tee: ‘He simply refuses to accept the finality of the decision by Chief Justice Yong.’

Justice Woo noted that Mr Tee was ‘unable or unwilling to understand’ that whether his allegation about the advertisement is true or not, it has no bearing on his conviction.

In other words, whether the husband had lied is a separate point from whether Mr Tee had lied.

He added: ‘It is not enough that Tee sincerely believes in the justice and correctness of his cause.’

According to the law, Mr Tee cannot appeal against Justice Woo’s decision.

The background to the case

AFTER housing agent Tee Kok Boon found a tenant for a property belonging to his client, Madam Heng Siew Ang, a dispute arose as to whether she should pay his employer, OK Property, a $2,000 commission.

The property firm tried to recover the commission at the Small Claims Tribunal.

At the tribunal hearing, Mr Tee testified that he had witnessed Madam Heng sign a letter agreeing to pay the commission.

Madam Heng then lodged a police report on May 18, 2002, that she believed her signature was forged.

Six days later, the tribunal ruled against Madam Heng, holding that there was no evidence to show that her signature was forged. Therefore, she had to pay the commission.

Subsequently, the police investigated her allegations and Mr Tee was eventually hauled to court.

He was charged with giving false evidence at the tribunal hearing.

During the ensuing trial, he admitted that Madam Heng did not sign the letter in his presence. However, he assumed she had signed it because he saw her signature.

The district judge convicted Mr Tee and sentenced him to 10 months’ jail.

Source : Straits Times - 1 Jan 2008