Assault case against Certis Cisco officer 'grossly exaggerated'
By Syed Amir Hussain, TODAY | Posted: 11 April 2012 1045 hrs
SINGAPORE: A High Court judge has dismissed a private investigator's suit against Certis Cisco Security and one of its officers, rejecting the investigator's version of the events and dismissing his account of the aftermath as a "grossly exaggerated dramatisation".
Mr Simon Suppiah Sunmugam, 65, had sued Certis Cisco Security and its auxiliary police officer Chua Geok Teck for assault and wrongful arrest.
During the trial in September last year, he claimed that he had been abused by Mr Chua outside the Israeli Embassy while conducting surveillance on an alleged adultery case on March 10, 2009.
Mr Sunmugam, managing director of Simmon Security and Investigation Services, claimed Mr Chua approached him in an aggressive manner, accused him of being a suspected terrorist, violently handcuffed his right wrist and swiped at his feet, causing him to fall face down on the ground.
He also claimed he was restrained for 30 minutes.
In his 28-page judgement dated last Thursday, Justice Tay Yong Kwang pointed to several inconsistencies.
Mr Sunmugam, he noted, was able to return to the scene of the incident to re-enact the arrest five days later, despite claiming to have deliberately avoided the area for about a year due to emotional and psychological disturbance.
Questioning the credibility of Mr Sunmugam's claim of being pinned down on the ground for 30 minutes, Justice Tay wrote: "If not for the seriousness of the allegations made in this case, the scenario presented by the plaintiff would be quite comical indeed."
As a former senior police officer, Mr Sunmugam should understand that Mr Chua was "merely performing his duties", said the judge.
But he "chose to be difficult and pugnacious towards a uniformed officer", whom he had called "a lowly educated Cisco officer, not a policeman".
Justice Tay agreed with the defendant that the arrest and use of force against Mr Sunmugam - who suffered "only minor injuries" - was "reasonable and justifiable on account of the plaintiff's resistance and struggle". - TODAY
