Auyok Kim Tye v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Eric Tin Keng Seng
• Judgment Date: 31 March 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] SGMC 17
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 2001
• Citation: [2001] SGMC 17
• Court: Magistrates' Court (Singapore)

JUDGMENT:

Grounds of Decision

This is an appeal against sentence by Auyok Kim Tye ("Auyok") lodged on 21 March 2001.

2 Auyok originally faced one count under 3(1)(a) of the Betting Act, Cap. 21 for using premises as a common betting house while having temporary use of the same with common intention with four other persons (exhibit P1), and 17 counts under s 5(3)(a) of the same Act for acting as a bookmaker (exhibits P2 to P18).

3 On the first day of what was to be a four-day trial, Auyok pleaded guilty before me to an amended charge under s 3(1)(a) of the Betting Act (exhibit P1A), and three amended charges under s 5(3)(a) of the Betting Act (exhibits P2A to P4A).

Facts

4 The facts supporting the charges are set out clearly in two statement of facts (exhibits A and B).

Conviction

5 After he indicated he understood the nature and consequences of his plea, and admitted to the contents in the two statement of facts without any qualification, Auyok was found guilty and convicted of the four charges.

Charges taken into consideration

6 The remaining 14 other counts were amended by prosecution and taken into consideration for sentence upon Auyoks admission and consent. Of these, four counts related to acting as a bookmaker under s 5(3)(a) of the Betting Act (exhibits P5A to P8A), and 10 counts were amended to betting with a bookmaker under s 5(1) of the Betting Act (exhibits P9A to P18A). All these offences were committed between 26 September to 11 October 2000.

Antecedents

7 There was nothing known against Auyok.

Mitigation

8 Counsel for Auyok tendered a short written mitigation plea (exhibit C) and a bundle of supporting documents (exhibit D). He asked me to take into account the nine days that Auyok spent in remand without bail after he was arrested on 14 October 2000. Counsel submitted that the amendment of the Betting Act to provide for enhancement of sentence was because in those days, match-fixings were involved, there was revenue loss to authorities, and fraud and deception was involved. He said that these criteria did not exist for this case and urged me to be lenient with Auyok.

9 I then adjourned the matter to consider sentence. On 13 March 2001, I gave my reasons for sentence which I now substantially reproduce below.

Sentencing framework

10 Section 20 of the Betting Act empowers a Magistrates Court to impose the full penalty or punishment in respect of any offence under the Act notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap. 68.

11 Offences under ss 3(1) and 5(3) of the Betting Act attract mandatory imprisonment term of not exceeding 5 years, and mandatory minimum fine of $20,000 up to a maximum of $200,000. Parliament in amending the Betting Act in 1986 made it clear that the present punishment regime is designed to adequately deter bookmakers and their agents: Singapore Parliamentary Report, Vol. 46, cols 723-8.

12 Our courts views on such offences and the appropriate sentencing tariffs are found in the Sentencing Practice of the Subordinate Courts (2000 Ed.) at pp. 719-720:

Due to the ease of the commission of such offences, coupled with the difficulty of detection and proof of such offences, the basis of sentencing is deterrence. The sentences for illegal bookmaking offences are linked to the amounts wagered. These offences carry a mandatory custodial sentence and a fine. From the decided cases, where the bets are valued at less than $500, a first offender with no previous convictions or any aggravating circumstances is usually sentenced to a short custodial term of two weeks and fined $20,000. Where the bets are valued between $501 and $1,000, the usual sentence is in the region of two months imprisonment and a fine of $30,000. For bets between $1001 and $2000, the basic tariff for a first offender is four months imprisonment and a fine of $40,000. The sentences correspondingly increase with the amounts of the bets. The tariff also increases with the record of the offender.

Mitigating factors

13 I noted Auyok was a first offender and that stood in his favour. He pleaded guilty at trial. Although a plea of guilt will be accepted as a good mitigating factor, since the offence is usually proved through police observation, this discount is tempered by the fact that deterrence is the basis for sentencing (see Sentencing Practice of the Subordinate Courts at p. 720). Nevertheless, I accepted that he was remorseful and cooperated with the authorities.

14 It was suggested in mitigation that Auyok was ignorant of the law and was apparently under the impression that he was receiving and placing bets with legal bookmakers in Europe and England. If he really thought he was involved in lawful activities, I found it odd why soluble papers were found...