Worker argues he had to meet performance targets in high-pressure environment
A District Court in Singapore recently dealt with a case involving a former police inspector who forged witness statements and later made a false declaration when applying to be admitted to the Singapore Bar.
The case highlights significant issues around professional integrity, mental health in the workplace, and the consequences of misconduct for law enforcement officers.
This case serves as a reminder of the importance of ethical conduct in high-trust professions like law enforcement and legal practice. It also raises questions about workplace stress, mental health support, and the pressures faced by officers to meet performance targets.
The court's decision weighed these factors against the need to maintain public confidence in the justice system.
The former police inspector admitted to forging 38 witness statements across 21 case files while working as an investigating officer. His supervisor noticed his poor performance and set timelines for outstanding cases.
Under pressure to meet deadlines, the inspector began fabricating statements, often without interviewing witnesses at all.
According to records, the misconduct occurred over a period from November 2018 to January 2019. The inspector's actions included crafting statements from scratch, inserting false dates and times, and appending false signatures to make it appear he had met deadlines. In some cases, he aligned fabricated accounts with other witness statements to avoid detection.
A psychiatric assessment found the inspector was suffering from adjustment disorder with depressed and anxious mood, which later developed into major depressive disorder of mild intensity. The psychiatrist concluded there was a contributory link between this condition and the forgery offences.
The inspector reported feeling extreme anxiety and low mood due to what he perceived as harsh treatment from his supervisor. He described being in "survival mode" and forging statements because he "felt that was the best thing to do to survive."
After resigning from the police force in April 2019 while under investigation, the former inspector applied for admission to the Singapore Bar. In his application affidavit sworn in December 2020, he falsely stated he was not subject to any pending criminal investigations.
The court emphasised the seriousness of this offence, noting:
"Furnishing a false declaration for a judicial proceeding is a very serious offence and this is reflected in the punishment that may extend to 7 years' imprisonment term."
The inspector had been served a Notice of Investigation in February 2019 and acknowledged it, making his false declaration particularly egregious.
The prosecution argued for a total sentence of 30 months' imprisonment, citing the need for deterrence and the breach of public trust. They emphasised the calculated nature of the forgeries and the difficulty in detecting such misconduct.
The prosecution highlighted that the inspector's actions undermined public confidence in the integrity of investigative and legal processes. They also noted the extensive efforts required to review and reinvestigate affected cases.
The defence sought a more lenient sentence of 12-17 months, highlighting the inspector's mental health issues and previously clean record. They argued his psychiatric condition was a significant mitigating factor and that he had a low risk of reoffending.
The defence also pointed to the inspector's good character prior to the offences, including an award for pro bono work. They emphasised the pressure he felt from deadlines set by his supervisor and difficulties in balancing his responsibilities.
The court imposed a total sentence of 25 months' imprisonment. In reaching this decision, the judge considered:
The judge noted:
"I agreed with parties that general deterrence was a key sentencing consideration for such offences. As rightly pointed out by the Prosecution, it is imperative to uphold public trust and confidence in the justice system and law enforcement plays an important role in the justice system."
Regarding the false declaration, the court emphasised:
"The accused's false declaration that he was not under investigation for criminal proceedings was deliberate and serious as this was a material and relevant fact that the court would consider in exercising its discretion to admit an Advocate and Solicitor."
This case underscores the importance of integrity in law enforcement and legal professions, while also highlighting the need for adequate mental health support in high-pressure work environments.
