Police at fault... so 'discount' for convict.

5 years' jail cut to 2 days
Appeal judge cites police 'error' in cheating case
Wednesday • October 17, 2007
Ansley Ng ansley@mediacorp.com.sg
------
AN UNUSUAL CASE
- 1997 to 2001: Chan used a car scam started by him and his accomplices.
- Aug 2002: Chan is jailed after confessing and pleading guilty to three charges
- March 2003: Chan released. Found a job as an aircon repairman
- 2003 to 2007: Chan helps various police divisions with probe. Changes job and gets promoted. Remarries and wins custody of his sons.
- March 2007: Slapped with 27 more charges
- July 2007: Sentenced to five years’ jail after pleading guilty to eight charges.
------
Randy Chan Kum Hong was sentenced to five years in jail for cheating and forgery, but an appeal judge slashed the jail term to just two days, citing an "error" on the part of the police in their handling of the case.
For his role in a used car scam in the late '90s, Chan was jailed for nine months in 2002 after a protracted probe by several police divisions.
But just as he was rebuilding his life after his release — first as an aircon technician, then as an employee in a mobile phone firm, where he climbed to the position of general manager — the police called him up again to help in more investigations. In March this year, authorities slapped 27 more charges on Chan.
In July, the 39-year-old pleaded guilty to seven charges of cheating and one charge of forgery and was sentenced to five years' imprisonment — his second incarceration.
Chan's lawyer, Mr Abraham Vergis, appealed, saying the jail term was excessive for someone who had confessed to the crimes before the first imprisonment and who had turned over a new leaf.
Mr Vergis said that even after his release from prison, Chan had the "Sword of Damocles" hanging over his head and had been "unfairly and unnecessarily prejudiced" by the delay in prosecution.

At a Magistrate's Appeal hearing yesterday, Deputy Public Prosecutor Han Ming Kwang told Justice V K Rajah that Chan had not informed the investigation officer (IO) of the other cases when he was dealt with in October 2002. The trial judge, District Judge Liew Thiam Leng, had also held that the delay was caused by Chan not informing the various IOs of the other offences that were being investigated, he said.
Giving his take on the delay in prosecution, Mr Vergis said one of the four police divisions investigating Chan went ahead and pressed charges without informing the other three. Chan was eventually jailed without their knowledge and investigations in these divisions were delayed when they couldn't find Chan.
"This lack of coordination between the various police divisions and the lack of a centralised database was a systematic problem within the police force for which the appellant cannot be held responsible," said Mr Vergis.

Justice Rajah agreed with Mr Vergis there had been an "error" on the part of police carrying out the probe. The judge was also convinced that Chan — the general manager of mobile phone company, Inbox — had shown that he was rehabilitated. Chan had recently remarried and had won custody of his two sons, aged 11 and 14, from an earlier marriage.
Calling it "an unusual case, which would require an unusual response", Justice Rajah ordered Chan to be jailed for two days on the eight charges.
When contacted by Today, a police spokesman said the police has "modernised" its computer monitoring system to improve the process since the incident ... It occurred in 2002, when the accused was first charged and not all charges were preferred against him, resulting in the current situation." Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/217033.asp