1 The accused is a 40-year-old Bangladeshi national. He was employed by HTC Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd (“Employer”) as a construction worker. He worked at a construction site at Hougang Street 13 (“Site”). ¹

2 Where an employee suffers personal injury caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of that employee’s employment, the employer is liable to pay compensation under the Work Injury Compensation Act 2019 (2020 Rev Ed) (“WICA”) (see s 7(1), WICA). An employee may also submit an incident report directly to the Ministry of Manpower (“MOM”) to notify MOM of a work-related accident.

3 On 7 November 2025, the accused submitted an incident report in person at the MOM Services Centre (“Incident Report”). ² In the Incident Report, the accused stated that:

(a) an “accident” had occurred at the Site on 29 October 2025 at 2:00pm at the “ground floor” of “[Block] B”.

(b) the “events that led to [the] accident” were as follows:

(c) he had suffered an injury to his left ear, described as “Deafness”.

(d) he had been examined or treated at Singapore General Hospital (“SGH”) and was granted five days’ medical leave.

4 The Commissioner for Labour (“Commissioner”) may appoint public officers as investigation officers (see s 6(1), WICA) to assist in administering the WICA. Edric Goh Shenxiang, an investigation officer (“IO”) from MOM’s Work Injury Compensation Department, was assigned to investigate the work injury compensation claim arising from the accused’s Incident Report. The IO subsequently “extracted” the Incident Report from MOM’s Integrated Occupational Safety and Health System for “investigation purpose[s]”. ³

5 Under s 68(2)(a) of the WICA, an investigation officer may examine orally any person who appears to be acquainted with facts relevant to the carrying out of the provisions of the WICA and reduce that person’s statement into writing. On 1 December 2025, sometime between approximately 11:10am and approximately 1:22pm, the IO recorded a statement from the accused (“December Statement”) through a Bengali interpreter, Gulshan Ara Akhter (“Interpreter Gulshan”). ⁴ The material portions of the accused’s December Statement were as follows:

6 Following investigations, the accused was charged ⁵ with making “a statement to the Commissioner [on 7 November 2025] that [the accused] knew was false in a material particular”, an offence under s 62(1)(a) of the WICA. The relevant “statement” in that charge was the accused’s description in his Incident Report ⁶ of the alleged events that had led to the “accident” on 29 October 2025. The Prosecution took the position that this “statement” was “false as no such accident [had] occurred in the course of [the accused’s] work”.

7 The Prosecution subsequently amended the charge. The amended charge alleged that the accused had made a “statement” to the IO which the accused “knew…was false in a material particular”. If proved, this allegation would likewise have constituted an offence under s 62(1)(a) of the WICA. The applicable provisions in s 62(1) of the WICA read as follows:

8 The charge at trial read as follows:

9 At the close of the Prosecution’s case, I exercised my discretion under s 230(1)(g) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 and altered the charge against the accused to reflect the specific representations made by the accused in the December Statement. The altered charge was in the following terms:

10 The altered charge was read and explained to the accused, who claimed trial. The accused chose to remain silent when called on to give his defence.

11 The Prosecution accepted that, to prove the altered charge, it had to establish the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: ⁷

(a) The accused had made the statements particularised in (a), (b), and (c) of the altered charge ⁸ to Edric Goh Shenxiang, an investigation officer under the WICA.

(b) These statements were made for the purposes of the WICA.

(c) These statements were false in material particulars, in that the work-related accident described by the accused had not occurred on 29 October 2025 at the Site.

(d) The accused knew that these statements were false in those material particulars.

12 It bears noting that these issues centred not on the accused’s Incident Report itself, but on the truthfulness of the specific statements he subsequently made to the IO during the recording of the December Statement.

13 There was no dispute that any statements made during the recording of the December Statement were made for the purposes of the WICA. Accordingly, the principal issues were:

(a) whether the accused had in fact made the statements particularised in the altered charge;

(b) whether those statements were false; and

(c) whether the accused knew them to be false.

14 I now turn to consider each of these issues.

15 The material portions of the December Statement reproduced above ⁹ show that the accused made the following three statements: ¹⁰

(a) that the description in his Incident Report – namely, that “a metal column” had “dropped onto the left side of” his “face”, “near to” his “left ear”, and “[a]s a result”, he “suffered injury to” his left ear – “was correct”;

(b) that the said column had “hit” his “face on the left side”; and

(c) that the said column had “also hit” his “right wrist as” he had “blocked” the column with his “hand” when the column “dropped”.

16 When first asked whether he was challenging the admissibility of the December Statement, the accused claimed: ¹¹

(a) that he “don’t know English” and “don’t know…what and how they wrote”.

(b) that he “can’t remember” whether he had made the December Statement voluntarily as he was “under mental pressure”. According to the accused, he was “under tension” because his “younger brother was arrested by police”, his wife “didn’t have money” following the delivery of their child, and his Employer had “brought [him to] different…places and asked [him] to sign”.

(c) that he had not replied willingly during the recording of the December Statement. According to the accused, he had “replied…for one or two questions only” and “didn’t say so many things”.

17 However, the accused did not put any of these claims to either the IO ¹² or Interpreter Gulshan when they gave evidence and were available for cross-examination. This omission is significant because both witnesses were in a position to confirm or deny those claims. Yet no such challenge was put to either witness. Their evidence on these matters therefore remained unchallenged.

18 Indeed, the accused did not challenge the IO’s evidence that: ¹³

(a) the December Statement was recorded in a “question and answer” format. After the IO had posed a question in English to the accused through Interpreter Gulshan, Interpreter Gulshan would then translate this question into Bengali to the accused. Interpreter Gulshan would subsequently translate the accused’s response in Bengali into English to the IO, following which the IO testified that he would record “the response[s] of [the accused as translated by Interpreter Gulshan] verbatim” in the December Statement.

(b) after the recording of the December Statement was completed, he had printed the December Statement out and allowed Interpreter Gulshan to “read [it] back [to the accused], explain [it to the accused] and translate [it] to the accused”.

(c) he had observed that Interpreter Gulshan would “interpret every question and response” to the accused.

(d) any amendment that was made to the December Statement was “read back and explained to the accused”. In this case, only two amendments were made – one, to the accused’s contact number on the first page and, two, to the year stated in Question 23 on the third page.

(e) the accused had signed on every page of the December Statement and against the two amendments that were made.

(f) the accused “appeared normal”, was “calm”, and was “able to respond coherently and logically” during the recording of the December Statement.

(g) he encountered no “issue” with the accused when recording the December Statement.

(h) there were no instances during the recording of the December Statement where the accused “appeared to have difficulty understanding the questions” posed to him.

(i) neither he nor Interpreter Gulshan had made any threat, inducement, or promise to the accused before or during the recording of the December Statement.

19 Similarly, the accused did not challenge Interpreter Gulshan’s evidence that: ¹⁴

(a) the IO had posed questions in English to the accused “one by one”. She then translated each question into Bengali for the accused. The accused had subsequently replied each question in Bengali, following which she translated the accused’s response into English for the IO.

(b) after the recording of the December Statement was finished, the IO had asked her to go through it in Bengali with the accused.

(c) after she had gone through the contents of the December Statement in Bengali with the accused, the accused confirmed that he understood its contents.

(d) the accused had asked her to write “No” in response to the question on whether he had “anything to add [to] or amend [in]” the December Statement.

(e) the accused had signed on every page of the December Statement and against the two amendments that were made.

(f) the accused did not appear to have any difficulty understanding her interpretation during the recording of the December Statement.

(g) the accused was “calm” during the recording of the December Statement.

(h) neither she nor the IO had made any threat, inducement, or promise to the accused before or during the recording of the December Statement.

20 Taken together, the unchallenged evidence of the IO and Interpreter Gulshan establishes that appropriate procedures were followed throughout the recording of the December Statement. I therefore reject the accused’s claims that he did not understand the questions posed to him, did not answer them willingly, or that the December Statement did not accurately record his responses. Those assertions were not put to either the IO or Interpreter Gulshan during cross-examination, despite both witnesses being available for cross-examination. Instead, I accept their unchallenged evidence that the recording process was properly conducted throughout. I therefore find that the accused made each of the statements particularised in the altered charge. I further find that the December Statement accurately recorded the responses communicated by the accused to the IO through Interpreter Gulshan.

21 The three statements particularised in the altered charge were made during the recording of the accused’s December Statement pursuant to the IO’s statutory powers under s 68(2)(a) of the WICA. These statements were made in the course of the IO’s investigations into the work injury compensation claim arising from the accused’s Incident Report. I am therefore satisfied that they were made “for the purposes of” the WICA within the meaning of s 62(1)(a).

22 I next consider whether the evidence establishes that the accident described in the Incident Report occurred. In my judgment, both the factual and medical evidence establish that it did not.

23 I begin with the factual evidence of the witnesses who had interacted with the accused on 29 October 2025, the day of the accident described in the Incident Report.

24 It was not disputed that the accused was with two other workers at the time of the “accident” described in his Incident Report: Ramachandran Rajkumar ¹⁵ (“Rajkumar”) and Haque Md Anamul ¹⁶ (“Anamul”). ¹⁷ Only Rajkumar testified for the Prosecution. Anamul had apparently already left Singapore. ¹⁸ The Prosecution also called Ghosh Rajo Chandra (“Ghosh”) as its witness. Ghosh was the Safety Coordinator at the Site on 29 October 2025. ¹⁹

25 The accused did not dispute Rajkumar and Ghosh’s evidence in any substantive manner during cross-examination. This is an important consideration in assessing the weight of their evidence.

26 Rajkumar testified that the accused, Anamul, and he had been assigned to do “housekeeping” on 29 October 2025 at the ground floor of Block 183B at the Site. ²⁰ The “supervisor” had instructed them earlier that morning after the toolbox meeting “to go to 183B and take the materials that had been dismantled, [and] stack them according to size, so that it [would] be easier for lifting”. ²¹ According to Rajkumar, “housekeeping” entailed only stacking metal panels/columns that had already been dismantled the previous day, according to size, making them easier to lift. ²²

27 Rajkumar confirmed that no dismantling work was carried out at Block 183B on 29 October 2025. ²³ All the “dismantled materials” were thus already on the ground floor of the block when they commenced “housekeeping”. ²⁴ As the work on 29 October 2025 consisted only of “housekeeping” (“picking up metal columns from the floor [and] stack[ing] them”), Rajkumar testified that there was “totally no chance” and “no opportunity” ²⁵ for a metal column to have dropped onto the left side of the accused’s face near his left ear. ²⁶ If Rajkumar's evidence is accepted – and I accept it – it necessarily follows that the factual premise underlying the accused's account could not have occurred, because no dismantling work was being carried out from which a metal column/panel could have fallen onto the accused.

28 This conclusion is reinforced by Ghosh’s unchallenged evidence that, because the accused was a “general worker”, the accused would not be assigned any dismantling work. According to Ghosh, the accused would only be assigned to “do housekeeping and tidy[ing] up of materials”. ²⁷

29 According to Rajkumar, he and Anamul were working at the ground floor of the building (of Block 183B) while the accused was working outside Block 183B that day. He would pass the (dismantled) metal panels/columns to Anamul, and Anamul would pass these on to the accused. ²⁸ From where he was standing, Rajkumar said he was able to see both Anamul and the accused. ²⁹ The accused was within his line of sight “at all times”. According to Rajkumar: ³⁰

(a) the distance between him and Anamul was about 48 inches (ie, about 1.22 metres).

(b) the distance between Anamul and the accused was about 52 inches (ie, about 1.33 metres).

(c) the distance between him and the accused was about 140 inches (ie, about 3.55 metres).

30 Rajkumar was therefore well placed to observe whether any accident involving the accused had occurred

31 It was Rajkumar’s unchallenged evidence that “no incident happened” that morning while they were doing “housekeeping”. That said, at around 2:00pm that same day, the accused had said in “normal English” that “his hand was itchy”. The accused then “showed his hand” and “it did look red, like how it would look [like] if the skin had been under the sun and you get pimples from it”. According to Rajkumar, the accused’s general condition appeared otherwise “normal”. Rajkumar said that he and Anamul then told the accused to inform “the supervisor” of this. The accused left and he did not see the accused thereafter. ³¹ It was also Rajkumar’s unchallenged evidence that: ³²

(a) apart from telling Rajkumar that “his hand was itchy”, the accused did not mention anything else.

(b) apart from the redness on the accused’s hand, he did not notice any visible injury on the accused. There were no signs of injury on the accused’s face or hands.

32 However, the accused provided a different version in of his interactions with Rajkumar and Anamul in his December Statement. There, he claimed that he had “called out” to Rajkumar and Anamul and told them that “the metal column [had] dropped onto [him], and [he] was feeling dizzy”. ³³

33 This inconsistency between Rajkumar’s unchallenged evidence and the accused’s December Statement concerned the very occurrence of the alleged accident and therefore materially undermined the reliability of the accused’s account in the December Statement.

34 At about 2:13pm on 29 October 2025, the accused spoke to Ghosh. In his December Statement, the accused gave the following account of his interaction with Ghosh: ³⁴

35 The accused’s account was directly contradicted by Ghosh’s unchallenged evidence. Ghosh had testified that he was about to go to his “site office” when the accused approached him and told him that he (ie, the accused) was “feeling itchy on his [ie, the accused’s] body”. According to Ghosh, the accused was “showing his hands” at this time. The accused also asked Ghosh “about [arranging a] lorry” to ferry him to the doctor. Ghosh informed the accused that it was “very difficult” for him to arrange a lorry for the accused at that time of the day and advised the accused to “go to his supervisor”. At that point, the accused asked Ghosh to “give him money”. Ghosh told the accused that he “can’t give [him] money” and walked away. According to Ghosh, the accused appeared otherwise “normal” during their conversation. He did not observe any visible bodily injuries on the accused’s face or hands. He also did not see anything to suggest that the accused had been involved in an accident. ³⁵

36 Ghosh’s evidence therefore directly contradicted the accused’s account that he had reported to Ghosh that a metal column had “hit [his] ear”. Had such an accident occurred, and had the accused reported it in the manner alleged, one would reasonably have expected Ghosh to recall both such a complaint and at least some indication of injury. Instead, Ghosh’s unchallenged evidence was that the accused complained only of itchiness, showed him his hands, and displayed no visible injuries or signs of having been involved in any accident.

37 Taken together, the unchallenged evidence of Rajkumar and Ghosh materially undermined the accused's account of the alleged accident. Neither witness observed any injury consistent with the accused’s later description. Neither was told that a metal column had dropped onto the accused or that it had struck the accused’s ear. Their evidence was mutually consistent and mutually reinforcing.

38 The accused saw four doctors between 29 October 2025 and 21 November 2025. The evidence of these four doctors provides an independent means of assessing the credibility of the accused’s account. Importantly, the accused did not challenge their evidence in any substantive manner. Indeed, their unchallenged evidence pointed strongly to there being no accident on 29 October 2025.

39 The accused had consulted Dr Mohd Zafiruddin bin Abd Rahman (“Dr Zafiruddin”) at SATA CommHealth Medical Centre for Migrant Workers at Kranji Recreation Centre at about 5:09pm on 29 October 2025. ³⁶ In his December Statement, the accused claimed that he had told Dr Zafiruddin in “simple English” that: ³⁷

(a) “some metal [had] dropped and hit [his] left face and ear” when he was “opening the metal”.

(b) he had “blocked the metal with [his] right hand”.

(c) his “right wrist was swollen”.

40 The accused did not put any of these claims to Dr Zafiruddin in cross-examination. In any event, the accused’s claims were contradicted by Dr Zafiruddin, whose unchallenged testimony was that the accused: ³⁸

(a) had not referred to any injury and had only mentioned that he was having “left ear pain”.

(b) did not appear to have any visible injuries.

(c) did not mention that his ear pain was related to his work.

(d) did not mention anything about a workplace accident.

41 The accused also did not dispute Dr Zafiruddin’s evidence that: ³⁹

(a) while the accused’s left ear canal was inflamed (ie, with “redness”) with clear discharge, which indicated an “early-stage ear infection”, the presence of clear discharge was “[v]ery unlikely” to be consistent with physical trauma to the ear (ie, this was inconsistent with the accused’s account that a metal column had hit his ear). According to Dr Zafiruddin, had the accused sustained physical trauma to his left ear, this would have been evident in the form of an “abrasion” and/or “blood stain discharge”.

(b) had the accused been struck by a metal object on the left side of his face, there would have been “obvious” signs of “redness” or “abrasions” on the left side of the accused’s face. Dr Zafiruddin said he did not see any of these signs on the accused.

42 Dr Zafiruddin also testified that the accused’s account in the Incident Report of the alleged events that led to the “accident” on 29 October 2025 was inconsistent with his findings that day. ⁴⁰

43 On the afternoon of 31 October 2025, the accused consulted Dr Johannes Nathaniel Liew Min Hui (“Dr Liew”) at the Emergency Department of SGH. ⁴¹ In his December Statement, the accused claimed that he had done the following during his consultation with Dr Liew:

(a) Told Dr Liew in “simple English” that:

(i) “the metal dropped [and he caught] it, but it touched [his] left ear and dropped onto the floor”.

(ii) his “left ear [was] injured”.

(b) Gestured to Dr Liew that he was feeling giddy and had a headache by placing his hand “around [his] head and [making a] circular motion”.

(c) Placed his hand on his “left ear” and said “got problem” to Dr Liew.

44 The accused did not put any of these claims to Dr Liew in cross-examination. Indeed, the accused did not dispute Dr Liew’s evidence that: ⁴²

(a) while the accused had reported that a heavy metal object had dropped from height onto a metal floor, leading to a very loud sound, the accused had otherwise denied suffering any head injury.

(b) the accused had not reported any injury to his head, including over his face.

(c) the accused had not complained of any injury to his right wrist, pain over his right wrist, or “wrist joint swelling”.

(d) had he seen visible injuries over the accused’s right wrist, he would have documented it.

(e) the accused’s presenting complaint during the consultation was that “a heavy metal object [had] dropped onto the floor and not on himself”.

45 The accused saw Dr See Xinyin Anna (“Dr See”) at SGH on 3 November 2025. ⁴³ Dr See is a Ear, Nose, and Throat (“ENT”) surgeon at SGH and has worked in SGH’s ENT Department for 13 years. The following aspects of Dr See’s evidence were not challenged by the accused, and I accept them: ⁴⁴

(a) That the accused did not present with any visible injuries to his face, ears, and head.

(b) That the accused’s otoscopy photographs revealed that he had a left “near total or subtotal eardrum perforation” that was “most likely chronic” (as opposed to acute).

(c) That the perforation of one’s eardrum can be caused by “loud sound…of extremely high intensity” – such as “a bombing event, fire explosives or gunshot”. Where there was direct contact between one’s head/ears with such sounds, “some small fragments or shrapnel of a metal object” could perforate the eardrum even if the sound was not of extremely high intensity. That said, given that the accused had “reported no contact of the metal object with his head and ears”, Dr See testified that she was “disinclined to attribute [the accused’s left] eardrum perforation with loud noise exposure”.

(d) That the accused had only reported that “he noticed left sided hearing loss” after “a metal object fell to the ground with loud sound”. Dr See testified that when she specifically clarified with the accused if any object had struck his head or ear, the accused had denied this. According to Dr See, this version of events presented by the accused on 3 November 2025 could not have caused the accused’s left eardrum perforation.

(e) That it was “[e]xtremely unlikely” for the accused’s left eardrum perforation to be caused by the version of events he had alleged in his Incident Report (and which he had confirmed “was correct” in his December Statement). According to Dr See, the accused’s left eardrum perforation could also not have been caused by his “left ear slightly bump[ing] onto…metal”. ⁴⁵

46 The accused saw Dr Joanna Goh Jiayu (“Dr Goh”) at the Department of Otorhinolaryngology at Tan Tock Seng Hospital on 21 November 2025. ⁴⁶ The accused did not challenge the following aspects of Dr Goh’s evidence: ⁴⁷

(a) That the accused had a “left subtotal [eardrum] perforation” that appeared to be “more chronic” (than acute).

(b) That the accused had reported that he was “working at his construction site on the 29th of October [2025 when] a [metal] plate fell beside him and produced a loud sound”, causing him “left sided ear pain and hearing loss”. There was otherwise “no head injury or direct injury from anything that was falling”. According to Dr Goh, the accused “didn’t report that anything [had] actually hit him and [had] only [reported] that something fell beside him”. Dr Goh also testified that apart from left-sided ear pain and hearing loss, the accused did not complain of other injuries.

(c) That the version of events reported to Dr Goh by the accused on 21 November 2025 was “not in keeping with [her] physical examination findings]”. This was because the accused’s “proposed mechanism of a metal plate falling beside[] [him would] generally not [generate] enough force to cause [such] findings”. It was Dr Goh’s evidence that in order for a loud sound to cause a subtotal eardrum perforation, it would have to be an “extremely loud sound very close to the ear [such as] gunshots [or] explosions at very, very close range”. Had this indeed been the case, it was Dr Goh’s evidence that the otoscopy photograph of the accused’s left ear would have shown “more signs of acute trauma and impact” with the eardrum perforating in a manner that was “more traumatic with more irregularity, jagged edges, [and] with some blood along the edges”. The residual part of the accused’s eardrum would have also shown “some signs of bleeding and bruising”. This was, however, not the case with the accused’s eardrum.

(d) That the version of events described in the accused’s Incident Report (which the accused had also confirmed “was correct” in his December Statement) was not in keeping with her examination findings. This was because the findings indicated “a chronic [left eardrum] perforation as opposed to something…caused by acute trauma or injury”.

(e) That the accused’s left eardrum perforation could also not have been caused by his “left ear slightly bump[ing] onto…metal”. ⁴⁸ This was because “a slight bump to the ear with a piece of metal would not cause…a subtotal eardrum perforation”.

47 Viewed collectively, the histories that the accused gave to the four doctors were materially inconsistent with one another and with the account that he later confirmed in his December Statement. More importantly, none of those histories described the mechanism of injury that formed the basis of the statements particularised in the altered charge. This substantially undermines the credibility of the accused’s subsequent account in his December Statement.

48 The final issue is whether the accused knew that the statements particularised in the altered charge were false when he made them. In my judgment, the accused knew this.

49 The statements particularised in the altered charge concerned matters that were necessarily within the accused’s own personal knowledge. Whether a metal column had dropped onto the left side of his face near his left ear, whether it had struck his face, and whether it had also struck his right wrist while he attempted to block it were not matters of inference, assumption, or mistaken belief. They concerned events that the accused himself claimed to have experienced. If those events had not occurred, the accused necessarily knew that fact when he confirmed to the IO that the description in his Incident Report “was correct” and when he provided the further particulars recorded in his December Statement.

50 Moreover, the evidence demonstrates that the accused repeatedly gave materially different accounts of the alleged incident. As discussed above, he gave accounts to Dr Liew, Dr See, and Dr Goh which differed materially from the version that he later confirmed during the recording of the December Statement. In particular, the histories he gave to those doctors did not involve a metal column striking his face or ear. Those inconsistencies cannot reasonably be explained as minor differences in recollection. Rather, they concerned the central mechanism by which the alleged injury was said to have occurred.

51 The objective evidence also strongly supports the inference that the accused knew his later statements were false. Rajkumar and Ghosh’s evidence established that no such accident occurred and that the accused did not contemporaneously report having been struck by a falling metal column. The medical evidence was likewise inconsistent with the mechanism of injury described in the Incident Report and subsequently confirmed in the December Statement. While this evidence principally establishes the falsity of the accused’s statements, it also reinforces the conclusion that the accused could not honestly have believed them to be true.

52 Finally, when the IO questioned the accused during the recording of the December Statement, the accused did not merely repeat the account in the Incident Report. Instead, he affirmed that the description in the Incident Report “was correct” and further elaborated that the metal column had struck his face and right wrist. These were positive assertions made after the accused had been specifically asked about the alleged accident. They were not inadvertent or ambiguous statements.

53 For the reasons set out above, I find that the accused knew each of the statements particularised in the altered charge to be false when he made them.

54 Having considered the evidence as a whole, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Prosecution has proved every element of the offence under s 62(1)(a) of the WICA.

55 The accused made each of the statements particularised in the altered charge to the IO during the recording of his December Statement. Those statements were made for the purposes of the WICA. They were false in material particulars because the work-related accident described by the accused had not occurred. Finally, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew those statements were false when he made them.

56 The evidence against the accused was overwhelming. The accused’s account was contradicted by the contemporaneous factual evidence, by the evidence of Rajkumar and Ghosh, and by the independent medical evidence of four doctors who examined him over the weeks following the alleged accident. The accused also gave materially inconsistent accounts of how his alleged injuries had occurred. Significantly, despite being specifically asked by the IO whether the description in his Incident Report was correct, the accused expressly affirmed that it was and went further by providing additional particulars of the alleged accident. I am satisfied that these were deliberate falsehoods rather than mistakes or misunderstandings.

57 I therefore find the accused guilty of the offence under s 62(1)(a) of the WICA and convict him accordingly. I will now hear submissions on sentence.