Cheng Thomas v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 30 November 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] SGHC 258
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeals Nos 180 and
• Date: 30 November 2000
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 2000
• Plaintiff Counsel: Appellant in person
• Citation: [2000] SGHC 258
• Defendant Counsel: Hay Hung Chun and Francis Ng (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Chance for rehabilitation,Whether reformative training oppositee,Sentencing,Words and Phrases,Whether has power to refer appellant to District Court for sentencing to reformative training,Juvenile Court,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Whether second sentence of reformative training excessive,s 44(2)(e) Children and Young Persons Act (Cap 38),"Of so unruly a character",Detention at Boys' Home,Young offenders

: The two appeals (MA 180/2000 and MA 201/2000) were brought by the accused who was appealing against his sentence only. The first appeal MA 180/2000 was against the decision of District Judge Seng Kwang Boon, who, on 12 July 2000, had sentenced the appellant to reformative training. The second appeal MA 201/2000 was against the decision of District Judge Mavis Chionh on 26 July 2000 to impose a second sentence of reformative training which was to run concurrently with the one ordered earlier.

Background facts

On 3 February 1998, at the age of 14 years and 8 months, the appellant was found guilty and convicted by the Juvenile Court on two counts of theft under s 379 read with s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) and a further two counts of theft under s 379A of the Penal Code. Consequently, the appellant was sentenced by the Juvenile Court to stay in the Singapore Boys` Home (`the Boys` Home`) for 30 months. On 30 June 1998, I heard and dismissed his appeal against conviction and sentence and ordered him to commence serving his 30-month term in the Boys` Home from that day onwards.

During his stay at the Boys` Home, the appellant was ill-disciplined and a recalcitrant trouble-maker who failed to comply with the rules and regulations of the Home. The following acts of misconduct and its surrounding circumstances were recorded by Mr Koh Ann Keong, the Superintendent of the Boys` Home:

(i) On 20 March 2000, the appellant and two other residents of the Boys` Home vandalised the Segregation Room by forcing open the security grille of the toilet exhaust louve, removing a piece of metal rod and using it to make a hole the size of a computer mouse on the ventilation wall. They then used the metal rod to reach for the light switch outside the Segregation Room to switch off the light.

(ii) On 22 March 2000, the appellant attempted suicide by drinking shampoo in the dormitory. He was later examined by the psychiatrist of the Institute of Mental Health, who assessed him as non-suicidal and no follow-up treatment was required. The appellant claimed that he attempted suicide because he was unhappy with the punishment of four strokes of the cane that was meted out to him by the Superintendent. He had been punished for being rude, defiant and refusing to carry out the teacher`s instructions to clean the classroom properly.

(iii) On 14 April 2000, the appellant escaped from the lawful custody of one Mohan s/o Francis Xavier, the Senior House Master of Block E of the Boys` Home. The appellant had been brought to the Jurong Polyclinic for medical attention after he complained of asthmatic problems. The appellant absconded after receiving medical attention and whilst waiting for his prescription.

(iv) At the time of his escape, the appellant`s hands were cuffed with a pair of Smith and Wesson handcuffs. After escaping, he managed to remove the handcuffs which he threw away after that.

(v) On 27 May 2000, the appellant was arrested by the police and taken back to the Boys` Home. On the same night, the appellant vandalised the Segregation Room again. This time he removed a metal showerhead and tied it to one end of his T-shirt, making a potentially dangerous weapon which could cause serious injuries if swung at another person`s head. The appellant then demanded to be released from the Segregation Room and to see a psychiatrist as well as the Superintendent immediately. When his demands were not acceded to, the appellant banged his head against the wall to protest. Eventually, he had to be restrained to a bed in order to protect him from further self-harm. Thereafter, he abused the staff with vulgarities.

The proceedings

On 29 May 2000, following these acts of misconduct by the appellant, the Superintendent of the Boys` Home made representations to the Juvenile Court under s 44(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act (`CYPA`) (Cap 38). The information provided by the Superintendent referred to the appellant`s misbehaviour, as enumerated earlier, and stated that the appellant was of so unruly a character that he could not be detained in the Boys` Home.

On 20 June 2000, after considering the information from the Superintendent, the Juvenile Court was satisfied that the appellant was of so unruly a character that he could not be detained in the Boys` Home. As the appellant was already 17 years old at the time of the hearing, the court called for a Reformative Training Report to assess his suitability for a sentence of reformative training. After receiving a report stating that the appellant was suitable for reformative training, the Juvenile Court invoked its powers under s 44(2)(e) of the CYPA to refer the appellant to a District Court so that he may be dealt with under s 13 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68). For the ease of reference, s 44(2)(e) CYPA states as follows:

(2) Where a Juvenile Court is satisfied, on the representations of the manager of a place of detention, an approved school or an approved home, that a person ordered to be detained in the place of detention, approved school or approved home is of so unruly a character that he cannot be so detained , the Court may -

...

(e) where the person is a male and has attained the age of 16 years and the Court is satisfied that it is expedient with a view to his reformation that he should undergo a period of training in a reformative training centre, the Court may order him to be brought...