A Karthik v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Sundaresh Menon CJ
• Judgment Date: 13 September 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] SGHC 202
• Plaintiff Counsel: Sadhana Rai (Criminal Legal Aid Scheme) and Khadijah Yasin (Mahmood Gaznavi & Partners)
• Date: 13 September 2018
• Docket Number: Magistrate’s Appeal No 9366 of 2017
• Hearing Date: 03 April 2018,05 July 2018
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Principles,Young offenders,Probation,Sentencing,Delay in prosecution
• Year: 2018
• Defendant Counsel: Gregory Gan (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Citation: [2018] SGHC 202
• Published date: 13 November 2018

Sundaresh Menon CJ: Introduction

The appellant, A Karthik (“the Appellant”), a 23-year-old male Singaporean, pleaded guilty in the court below to one charge under s 420 read with s 116 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) of abetting, by conspiracy, the cheating of a motor insurance company, and consented to a similar charge of abetting, by conspiracy, the cheating of another motor insurance company being taken into consideration for sentencing purposes. The district judge (“the District Judge”) sentenced him to four months’ imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the decision, the Appellant appealed against the sentence imposed.

After hearing the parties on 3 April 2018, I adjourned the proceedings to obtain a probation pre-sentencing report in respect of the Appellant. In a report prepared by the investigating probation officer, Ms Ho Li Ling (“Ms Ho”), dated 7 May 2018 (“the Report”), the Appellant was assessed to be suitable for probation. On 5 July 2018, having considered the contents of the Report and further submissions from the parties, I concluded that probation was the most appropriate sentence to impose on the Appellant, subject to the accompanying conditions recommended in the Report. I therefore allowed the appeal and ordered the Appellant to be placed on 24 months’ supervised probation with effect from 5 July 2018, subject to: (a) a daily time restriction from 11pm to 6am; (b) a requirement that the Appellant undertake 200 hours of community service; and (c) a requirement that the Appellant’s mother be bonded in the sum of $5,000 to ensure his good behaviour throughout the 24-month term of probation.

In general, offenders aged 21 or below are treated as youthful offenders for the purposes of sentencing. A particular aspect of this appeal was the fact that although the Appellant was 22 years old at the time he was sentenced on 20 November 2017 in the court below, he was only 17 years old at the time he committed the offences in question in June 2012. This presented an anterior question that had to be considered before deciding on the substantive issues in the appeal: should an offender who is aged 21 or below at the time of his offending conduct, but who is older than 21 when he is sentenced, be considered a youthful offender for sentencing purposes? Against that background, as I indicated I would do when allowing the appeal, I now set out the detailed reasons for my decision.

Background

The Appellant is currently in National Service. In June 2012, at the time of his offences, he was 17 years old and a student at the Institute of Technical Education College East Simei. Sometime prior to that, he had completed a 21-month term of probation for committing robbery with common intention, an offence under s 392 read with s 34 of the Penal Code. That term of probation commenced on 19 January 2010 and ended in October 2011.

The commission of the offences

In early June 2012, one Sollihin bin Anhar (“Sollihin”) hatched a plan to stage a traffic accident at a deserted spot along Portsdown Road. To this end, Sollihin instructed one Rahmat bin Mohd (“Rahmat”) to create a chain collision involving three vehicles (which I shall refer to as “V1”, “V2” and “V3”). Rahmat drove V2 to an area at Portsdown Road, one Mohamed Rashidi bin Mohamed Noor (“Rashidi”) drove V3 to the same place, while two unknown Indian males drove V1 there. Rahmat then positioned V1 in front of V2, which in turn was positioned in front of V3, and engineered bumper-to-bumper collisions between the rear of V1 and the front of V2, as well as between the rear of V2 and the front of V3.

On 5 June 2012, one Suresh s/o Krishnan (“Suresh”) asked his cousin, Krishna Kumar s/o Rajagopal (“Krishna”), to go for a medical examination at a clinic in order to obtain a medical certificate (“MC”) from the doctor at the clinic. Upon obtaining the MC, Krishna was to hand it over to Suresh. Suresh also asked Krishna to recruit one more person to do likewise. Krishna accordingly approached the Appellant, who was his schoolmate at that time, to accompany him to a clinic and also to obtain an MC. The Appellant agreed.

Further to these arrangements, Suresh and one Noel Antney Kypas (“Noel”) picked Krishna and the Appellant up from school and proceeded to the Central Medical Group (“CMG”) clinic to see a doctor. Suresh instructed Noel, Krishna and the Appellant that they should each inform the doctor at the clinic that they had been involved in a traffic accident and had suffered injuries, specifically, back pain, as a result. Suresh told the Appellant that he should say that at the time of the accident, Noel had been the driver of V1, Krishna had been the front passenger, and he (the Appellant) had been the rear passenger, even though none of them had in fact been in V1 or in any collision involving it. At the clinic, the Appellant duly informed the doctor that he had been a rear passenger of V1, had been involved in a traffic accident, and had injured his back as a result of the accident. The Appellant received a three-day MC from the doctor.

Sometime in June 2012, the Appellant was brought to a law firm, JusEquity Law Corporation (“JusEquity”), to file a personal injury claim against a motor insurance company, China Taiping Insurance (Singapore) Ltd (“CTI”), in its capacity as the insurer for V3, and to engage JusEquity to act on his behalf. JusEquity sent a letter of demand to CTI, demanding payment of $5,370.50 for personal injury caused by the purported negligent driving of Rashidi on 4 June 2012. JusEquity enclosed the following supporting documents with the letter of demand: (a) a Singapore Accident Statement (“SAS”) dated 5 June 2012 made by Noel; (b) the Appellant’s MC dated 5 June 2012; (c) the Appellant’s medical report from CMG; and (d) a receipt for the Appellant’s medical expenses issued by CMG. JusEquity also made, on behalf of the Appellant, a similar personal injury claim against another motor insurance company, Tokio Marine Insurance Singapore Ltd (“TMI”), in its capacity as the insurer for V1 and V2, demanding payment of $5,370.50 for personal injury suffered by the Appellant.

Neither CTI nor TMI made payment on the personal injury claims filed on the Appellant’s behalf.

It was subsequently disclosed that the SAS lodged by Noel stated that a chain collision had taken place along Portsdown Road on 4 June 2012 at about 10.30pm involving: (a) for V1, Noel as the driver, Krishna as the front passenger, and the Appellant as the rear passenger; (b) for V2, one Teo Kian Hwee, Edwin as the driver, one Teo Kian Wei, Edward as the front passenger, and one Lee Kit and one Alvin Chia Han Kwang as the two rear passengers; and (c) for V3, Rashidi as the driver. For convenience, I shall hereafter refer to this alleged chain collision as “the Accident”.

It was also subsequently disclosed that both CTI, as the insurer of V3, and TMI, as the insurer of V1 and V2, had received property damage and personal injury claims from all of the aforementioned individuals who claimed to be drivers and passengers of the respective vehicles at the time of the Accident. However, none of these persons were in fact in the vehicles in question or in any collision involving those vehicles, nor had any of them sustained any of the injuries that were the subject of the claims.

The investigations by the police and the Appellant’s subsequent arrest

On 4 February 2013, a representative of TMI lodged a police report stating that fraudulent insurance claims had been made in respect of the Accident. The police duly commenced investigations into the allegations of motor insurance fraud, and these eventually revealed that Sollihin was the mastermind behind at least 42 staged accidents involving about 100 people.

In January 2015, the Appellant was contacted by the police regarding the motor insurance claims submitted in June 2012 in relation to the Accident. The Appellant initially made a statement to the police denying any involvement in the matter.

On 2 August 2016, following further investigations, the Appellant was arrested and charged with two offences under s 420 read with s 116 of the Penal Code of abetting, by conspiracy, the cheating of CTI and TMI respectively. The Appellant immediately admitted to both charges in his cautioned statements recorded pursuant to s 23(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed).

On 20 November 2017, the Appellant pleaded guilty to the charge of abetting, by conspiracy, the cheating of CTI, and consented to the charge of abetting, by conspiracy, the cheating of TMI being taken into consideration for sentencing purposes.

The decision below

In the court below, the Prosecution sought a sentence of at least four months’ imprisonment, while the Appellant sought either a conditional discharge under s 8(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act (Cap 252, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the POA”) or, alternatively, an order of probation under s 5(1) thereof: see Public Prosecutor v A Karthik [2017] SGDC 341 (“GD”) at [12]–[13].

The District Judge imposed a sentence of four months’ imprisonment, reasoning as follows: General deterrence was an important consideration when sentencing motor insurance fraudsters because such offences, which involved staged accidents, were difficult to detect and investigate, and had serious implications, including substantial losses to motor insurers and, as a consequence, higher motor insurance premiums for motorists (GD at [25]). There was also a need for specific deterrence in this case because the Appellant had committed his offences in June 2012, just nine months after completing the 21-month term of probation for his earlier robbery offence. This suggested that he had not been deterred or rehabilitated by the earlier term of probation. The Appellant’s conduct “was no mere moment of juvenile folly” because he had lied to three different parties – the doctor at CMG...