Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content

Judiciary News and Current Issues

Manage PermissionsManage Permissions
Case Summary: Public Prosecutor vs Supt Hj Khairur Rijal bin Hj Abu Salim (D1) Liew Say Koo (D2)

CASE SUMMARY


PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

VS

SUPT HJ KHAIRUR RIJAL BIN HJ ABU SALIM (D1)

LIEW SAY KOO (D2)

____________________________________________

In the Magistrate's Court at Bandar Seri Begawan

Criminal Trial No. 2123 of 2016

___________________________________________

 

Muhammed Faisal bin PDJLD DSP Hj Kefli, Magistrate

31st January 2019

 

DPP Shamsuddin and DPP Pg Azmeena for Public Prosecutor

D1 in person, D2 represented by Mr. Roy Prabhakaran of Messrs Yusof Halim & Partners

 

The first defendant Supt Hj Khairur Rijal bin Hj Abu Salim, at the time of arrest, held the rank of superintendent with the Royal Brunei Police Force (RBPF). The second defendant Liew Say Koo, is a Malaysian businessman in the construction industry who is a prohibited immigrant expelled from Brunei Darussalam and was prohibited from re-entering the country due to his criminal record.

The first defendant was charged under section 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in his capacity as an 'agent' serving as an officer with the RBPF, for corruptly accepting from the second defendant, gratification as an inducement or reward for assisting in the second defendant's affairs sometime in 2012. The first defendant was also charged under section 165 of the Penal Code, in his capacity as a public servant with the RBPF, sometime in 2012 for obtaining for himself a valuable thing without consideration from the second defendant who he knew to have a connection with the official functions of himself.

The second defendant was charged under section 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for corruptly giving to the first defendant, who is an officer of the RBPF, a gratification as inducement or reward for assisting in his affairs sometime in 2012. The second defendant was also charged in abetting the commission of an offence under section 165 of the Penal Code by the first defendant.

In his judgment, the trial Magistrate found both Defendants guilty and convicted them of all charges.

In relation to the charge under section 6(a) and 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the first and second defendant, respectively, the Court accepted the evidence of the Prosecution and found that:

  • The first defendant is an 'agent' serving as an officer with the RBPF;
  • The first defendant accepted a gratification, that being a white coloured Toyoya Hilux vehicle with registration number BAH 6986, from the second defendant;
  • The first defendant accepted the said vehicle as an inducement to assist the second defendant, who is a prohibited immigrant and was previously expelled from Brunei Darussalam, to repeatedly enter and exit the country between 2011 and 2013;
  • The first defendant assisted the second defendant in this respect by making applications on behalf of the Commissioner of Police or the Director of the Criminal Investigations Department to the Controller of Immigration and National Registration Department by stating that the second defendant was allegedly needed to assist in the police investigations;
  • The second defendant gave a gratification to the first defendant, that being a white coloured Toyota Hilux vehicle with registration number BAH 6986;
  • The second defendant gave the said vehicle to induce the first defendant to assist him to enter and exit the Brunei Darussalam between 2011 and 2013, as he is a prohibited immigrant and was previously expelled from the country; and
  • The first defendant assisted the second defendant in this respect by making or instructing to be made applications on behalf of the Commissioner of Police or the Director of the Criminal Investigations Department to the Controller of Immigration and National Registration Department by stating that the second defendant was allegedly needed to assist in the police investigations.

In summary, the Court found that the Prosecution had shown that the first defendant had accepted and the second defendant had given the gratification and therefore the presumption under section 25 of the Prevention of Corruption Act applies. The Court subsequently found that the Defence has failed to rebut the presumption for the charges against them.

In relation of the charge under section 165 of the Penal Code, the Court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that:

  • the first defendant in his capacity as a superintendent with the RBPF is a public servant;
  • the first defendant obtained a white coloured Toyota Hilux vehicle with registration number BAH 6986;
  • the first defendant obtained the said vehicle without consideration or for consideration he knew to be inadequate; and
  • the first defendant obtained the said vehicle from the second defendant, who he knew was concerned with his official business as a public servant.

The Court was also satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the second defendant abetted the first defendant in the commission of the offence under section 165 of the Penal Code.

The second defendant, Liew Say Koo, was sentenced by the Magistrate accordingly and in respect of the charge under section 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, he was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment and for the charge of abetting the commission of an offence under section 165 of the Penal Code, he is sentenced to 12 months imprisonment. The Court ordered for the second defendant's sentence to be served concurrently as they transpired from a single transaction. The Court's sentencing in respect of the first defendant, Supt Hj Khairur Rijal bin Haji Abu Salim, is set on February 14, 2019.

 

This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court's decision. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. ---Supreme Court of Brunei Darussalam

Attachments
Created at 01/02/2019 04:23 PM by Mohamad Jazmi bin Hj Mohamad Kamel
Last modified at 04/02/2019 11:02 AM by Mohamad Jazmi bin Hj Mohamad Kamel