CLB and Another v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 14 January 1993
• Neutral Citation: [1993] SGHC 10
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 104 of 1992
• Date: 14 January 1993
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1993
• Plaintiff Counsel: Denis Tan (Toh Tan & Partners)
• Citation: [1993] SGHC 10
• Defendant Counsel: Ong Hian Sun (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether sentence of one week's imprisonment and $800 fine manifestly excessive,Giving false information to a public servant,Sentencing,s 182 Penal Code (Cap 224),False information in blood donor registration forms,False information led to receipt of HIV -infected blood from donors,Benchmark sentences,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Considerations and mitigating factors

Both appellants pleaded guilty to a single charge each under s 182 of the Penal Code (Cap 224), of giving false information to a public servant, the Medical Director of the Singapore Blood Transfusion Service, in their respective donor registration forms, knowing it to be likely that they would thereby cause the said public servant to receive a blood donation from them, which the said public servant ought not to have done if the true state of affairs were known to him. They were each sentenced to a week`s imprisonment and a fine of $800. Having paid their fines, they now appeal against these sentences as being manifestly excessive.

The facts relating to the first appellant are as follows. He is a regular helper at the Singapore Red Cross and a regular blood donor, having given blood 17 times before the occasion relevant to the charge. On 28 June 1991 he went to the Red Cross Blood Centre for his lunch break, as he was wont to do, without any intention of giving blood. Only the staff were present and the receptionist asked the appellant to donate blood as there were no other donors that day. The appellant agreed, filled in a donor registration form and went into the blood donation room. On being asked, he confirmed to the duty medical officer that the answers given by him in the questionnaire were all correct and he signed the donor registration form in the duty medical officer`s presence. His blood was received for donation and two weeks later, it was tested HIV (Human Immuno-deficiency Virus) positive. On 8 July 1991 he was referred to the Department for Communicable Diseases at Tan Tock Seng Hospital. In an interview with the medical consultant, he said that he had had unprotected sexual intercourse (ie without using a condom) with a woman in Thailand in May 1991. On the donor registration form, question 13 reads as follows: `Have you had unprotected sex (ie sex without using a condom) with a prostitute or a sexual partner other than your usual sexual partner during the last six (6) months?` The first appellant had answered this question `No`, as he had done all the other questions on the form.

The second appellant was not a regular blood donor but had in the past donated blood twice, once in 1987 and again in 1989, on specific occasions when it was needed by someone known to him. On 22 May 1991 a client telephoned his employer at the office, saying that the client`s brother had been involved in a road accident and urgently needed blood. The second appellant`s employer was then out of town. When Teo answered in response to the client`s question that he had given blood before, the client urgently pleaded with him to donate blood to the brother. As he had an appointment shortly, the second appellant went immediately to the National Blood Centre and told the nurse at the counter that he was there to donate blood to the accident victim. Somewhat hurriedly, he filled in a donor registration form and donated his...