Chuah Gin Synn v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 04 March 2003
• Neutral Citation: [2003] SGHC 47
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 275 of 2002
• Date: 04 March 2003
• Year: 2003
• Published date: 07 October 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Chen Chee Yen (Tan Peng Chin LLC)
• Citation: [2003] SGHC 47
• Defendant Counsel: Cheng Howe Ming and Tan Wee Soon (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) s 217.,First offender,Where court has not yet risen for the day,Appeal,Jurisdiction of the High Court on appeal from a magistrate's court,Special circumstances Whether appropriate to substitute a term of imprisonment with a fine,Power of High Court sitting in appellate jurisdiction to correct an error in judgment,Sentencing,Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) s 11(5),Criminal Procedure and Sentencing

1 The appellant pleaded guilty in the magistrate’s court to one count of theft, an offence under s 379 of the Penal Code (Cap 224). She was sentenced to two weeks’ imprisonment and appealed against her sentence. I allowed her appeal, substituting instead a fine of $2,000, in default two weeks’ imprisonment, and now give my reasons.

The facts

2 The appellant is an Australian national who was visiting Singapore in order to register her marriage to her Singaporean fiancé. On 28 October 2002, she was at the Metro Department Store in Causeway Point, Woodlands, where a security guard observed her behaving suspiciously. Specifically, she was seen putting four different pieces of clothing into her bag, while attempting at the same time to conceal her actions. The appellant was also seen telling the cashier that she would return a brassiere to the relevant section of the store, but instead put the brassiere in her bag and attempted to leave the store.

3 When confronted by the security guard, a total of 11 items, being ten blouses and one brassiere, with a total value of $259.70, were found in the bag. The appellant admitted that she had stolen the items, and pleaded guilty to the charge of theft in the magistrate’s court.

4 In determining her sentence, the magistrate noted that there had been a significant increase in the incidence of shoplifting cases in recent months, thereby warranting the imposition of more severe sentences in order to arrest the trend. In light of the number of items stolen by the appellant, which showed both the persistence of her conduct and her audacity, as well as constituting evidence of premeditation on her part, the magistrate concluded that a custodial sentence was warranted. He sentenced her to two weeks’ imprisonment.

The appeal to this court

5 The appellant’s appeal was made on the basis that the sentence imposed by the magistrate was manifestly excessive. Counsel for the appellant raised the issue of the appellant having been on medication for depression at the time of the offence, when such medication had resulted in her acting out of character and committing the offence. As the appellant had not been represented in the lower court, she had failed to appreciate the importance of raising this issue in mitigation. Counsel also informed me that the appellant’s marriage, which had originally been scheduled to take place on the day after her conviction in the magistrate’s court, had now been postponed as a result of the present proceedings. Finally, he also emphasised that the appellant did not have a criminal record either in Singapore or in Australia, that she had shown remorse, and that she had co-operated with the police in their investigations. As such, he contended that the ends of justice would have been served by the imposition of a fine.

6 The prosecution objected to the appeal, arguing that the appellant had committed a serious offence whilst employing a number of surreptitious techniques. In light of the steady rise in shoplifting cases, it argued for a deterrent sentence to be imposed in the present case. As for the specific arguments raised in mitigation by the appellant, the prosecution contended that the claim of illness on the appellant’s part was of little value as she had not shown how her illness or the medication had affected her conduct, which had been shrewd and deliberate. Furthermore, the appellant’s co-operation with the police was of no mitigating value as she had been caught...