Chen Weixiong Jerriek v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 30 April 2003
• Neutral Citation: [2003] SGHC 103
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 18 of 2003
• Date: 30 April 2003
• Year: 2003
• Published date: 07 October 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: James Lee Ah Fong (Ng, Lee & Partners)
• Citation: [2003] SGHC 103
• Defendant Counsel: Edwin San (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether evidence of genuine remorse shown,Appeals,Mitigation,Sentencing,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Remorse,Whether offender charged with multiple offences considered first offender,Application of the totality principle.

1 The appellant pleaded guilty in the district court to a total of seven charges, comprising three counts of robbery with common intention pursuant to s 392 of Penal Code (Cap 224) read with s 34 of the Penal Code, three counts of robbery with hurt with common intention under s 394 of the Penal Code read with s 34 of the Penal Code and one count of voluntarily causing hurt by means of a dangerous weapon under s 324 of the Penal Code. For the sake of clarity, the charges are set out hereunder.

(a) DAC 40371/2002

You, Chen Weixiong Jerriek, male/17 years, NRIC S8539057J, are charged that you on or about the 5th day of July 2002 at or about 1.00pm at void deck of Blk 121, Lor 1 Toa Payoh, Singapore, together with Koh Bang Long and Chia Jia Ting Samuel, with furtherance of the common intention of you all, did rob one Ng Juin Chye Joel of a handphone valued at about $450/- and thereby committed an offence punishable under s 392 read with s 34 of the Penal Code.

(b) DAC 40732/2002

You, Chen Weixiong Jerriek, male/17 years, NRIC S8539057J, are charged that you on or about the 5th day of July 2002 at or about 1.00pm at void deck of Blk 121, Lor 1 Toa Payoh, Singapore, together with Koh Bang Long and Chia Jia Ting Samuel, with furtherance of the common intention of you all, did rob one Ow Tuck Huat of a handphone valued at about $450/- and thereby committed an offence punishable under s 392 read with s 34 of the Penal Code

(c) DAC 41426/2002

You, Chen Weixiong Jerriek, male/17 years, NRIC S8539057J, are charged that you on or about the 14th day of June 2002 at or about 3.50pm at void deck of Blk 242, Simei Street 5, Singapore, together with Koh Bang Long and Chia Jia Ting Samuel, were jointly concerned in committing robbery of one handphone valued at about S$300/- in the possession of one Yap Seng Wee Joel, and whilst committing the said robbery, voluntarily caused hurt to the said Yap Seng Wee Joel, to wit, by slapping him and banging his head against the wall and you all have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 394 of the Penal Code.

(d) DAC 41427/2002

You, Chen Weixiong Jerriek, male/17 years, NRIC S8539057J, are charged that you on or about the 14th day of June 2002 at or about 5.30pm at along Blk 408, Bedok North Street 1, Singapore, together with Koh Bang Long and Chia Jia Ting Samuel, were jointly concerned in committing robbery of one handphone valued at about S$700/- in the possession of one Ong Jian Wei, and whilst commiting the said robbery, voluntarily caused hurt to the said Ong Jian Wei, to wit, by punching him on the face and head and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 394 of the Penal Code.

(e) DAC 41428/2002

You, Chen Weixiong Jerriek, male/17 years, NRIC S8539057J, are charged that you on or about the 23rd day of June 2002 at or about 5.30pm at Level 3 staircase lobby of Century Square Shopping Centre located at No. 1 Tampines Central 1, Singapore, together with Koh Bang Long and Chia Jia Ting Samuel, with furtherance of the common intention of you all, did rob one Shum Shun Yin of one handphone valued at about $428/- and thereby committed an offence punishable under s 392 read with s 34 of the Penal Code.

(f) DAC 41433/2002

You, Chen Weixiong Jerriek, male/17 years, NRIC S8539057J, are charged that you on or about the 21st day of June 2002 at or about 5.45pm at the staircase of White Sands Shopping Centre located at No 1, Pasir Ris Central Street 3, Singapore, together with Koh Bang Long and Chia Jia Ting Samuel, were jointly concerned in committing robbery of one handphone valued at about S$100/- in the possession of one Ng Wei Lun Schwarzenegger, and whilst committing the said robbery, voluntarily caused hurt to the said one Ng Wei Lun Schwarzenegger, to wit, by punching him on the face and kicking him in the chest and you all have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 394 of the Penal Code.

(g) DAC 61933/2002

You, Chen Weixiong Jerriek, male/17 years, NRIC S8539057J, are charged that you on or about the 26th day of December 2002 at or about 11.30pm outside Yishun 8 Coffeeshop at Yishun Central Road, Singapore, did voluntarily cause hurt to one Andy Lim Ban Chit, by means of an instrument which was used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, to wit, a beer bottle and you thereby committed an offence punishable under s 324 of the Penal Code.

2 The appellant was sentenced to two years and six months imprisonment and six strokes of the cane in each of DAC 40371/2002, DAC 40372/2002 and DAC 41428/2002; five years and six months imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane in each of DAC 41426/2002, DAC 41427/2002 and DAC 41433/2002; and one year and six months imprisonment in DAC 61933/2002. The district judge ordered the sentences in DAC 40371/2002, DAC 41426/2002 and DAC 61933/2002 to run consecutively and the other sentences to run concurrently. In total, the appellant was sentenced to nine years and six months imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane pursuant to s 230 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68).

3 In passing sentence, 38 charges were taken into consideration. These comprised 32 charges for offences of robbery with common intention under s 392 of the Penal Code read with s 34 of the Penal Code and six charges for offences of robbery with hurt with common intention under s 394 of the Penal Code read with s 34 of the Penal Code. The present appeal was brought against sentence. I dismissed the appeal and now give my reasons.

The facts

4 The facts of the case are set out in the statement of facts to which the appellant admitted unreservedly in pleading guilty to the charges against him. The appellant, together with two accomplices, one Koh Ban Leong and one Chia Jia Ting Samuel, adopted a similar mode of operation in respect of the offences of robbery and robbery with hurt over a period of two months in June and July 2002. The appellant and his accomplices approached their victims, all of whom were between the ages of 12 and 16 years, and accused the victims of either staring at them or of belonging to a secret society. The victims were then forced to go with the appellant and his accomplices to quiet places such as multi-storey carparks or staircases of shopping centres. There, the victims were robbed of their handphones. Victims who resisted were beaten up. The beatings consisted of punches, kicks and slaps; one victim had his head slammed against a wall. The appellant and his accomplices sold off the stolen handphones to shops and spent the proceeds on food, drink and arcade games. The total value of the items taken in the 44 charges of robbery and robbery with hurt was $10,321.

5 In respect of DAC 61933/2002, the appellant committed the offence of voluntarily causing hurt by means of a dangerous weapon on 26 December 2002 while he was out on bail for the charges of robbery and robbery with hurt offences. The appellant was at a coffeeshop at Yishun Central Road. He perceived that the 22 year old victim, who was sitting at another table, was staring at him. He confronted the victim, grabbed an empty beer bottle from a nearby table and smashed it on the victim’s head with such force that the bottom half of the bottle broke off. The victim suffered a 2 cm laceration in the occipital region.

The decision below

6 The only issue before the district judge was the appropriate sentence to impose on the appellant as the appellant had unequivocally pleaded guilty to the seven charges proceeded with against him in the court below. In sentencing the appellant, the district judge considered both the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case.

7 The district judge was of the view that, while the accused had pleaded guilty to the charges and had cooperated fully with the police in their investigations, the number of grave aggravating factors far outweighed these mitigating factors. The 44 robbery and robbery with hurt offences were committed over a period of about two months; on 14 June 2002, two offences of robbery with hurt were committed at two different locations within two hours of each other. The appellant had committed a large number of offences as a means of obtaining extra money to feed his lifestyle. The robbery offences were committed in a calculated manner and the appellant and his accomplices had selected their victims carefully, targeting only those who were smaller in size and younger than them, so that they could easily achieve their objectives through verbal threats. The district judge found that the appellant was of a violent disposition. Further, he had committed the offence of voluntarily causing hurt with a dangerous weapon while he was out on bail for the other offences; this displayed his indifference to the consequences of such criminal behaviour on the victim and upon himself.

8 The district judge ruled out the possibility of sentencing the appellant to probation as he took the view that the appellant could not be controlled by his parents, both before the offences of robbery and robbery with hurt were committed and during the period of bail after the appellant had been arrested. In addition, the offences had been committed while the appellant was receiving counselling from the Sembawang Family Service Centre (‘the FSC’). Further, the serious nature of the appellant’s offences and his violent disposition meant that reformative training was not a suitable option. Based on these considerations, the district judge imposed a sentence of imprisonment and caning, as set out in para 2.

The appeal

9 On appeal, counsel for the appellant contended that the sentence imposed on the appellant was manifestly excessive. Counsel asserted that the district judge erred in finding that the appellant had a violent disposition as a report prepared by a volunteer counsellor at the FSC (‘the FSC report’) had stated...