Fay v Public Prosecutor
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judgment Date | 08 April 1994 |
| Date | 08 April 1994 |
| Docket Number | Magistrate's Appeal No 48 of 1994 |
| Court | High Court (Singapore) |
[1994] SGHC 93
Yong Pung How CJ
Magistrate's Appeal No 48 of 1994
High Court
Criminal Law–Offences–Vandalism–Accused pleading guilty to vandalism charges involving spraying paint on cars–Accused sentenced to imprisonment and caning–Whether all acts of vandalism committed using paint to be punished with caning–Whether delibility or otherwise of paint used to be considered–Section 3 Vandalism Act (Cap 341, 1985 Rev Ed)–Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Sentencing–Young offenders–Accused aged 18–Whether probation order suitable–Section 5 (1) Probation of Offenders Act (Cap 252, 1985 Rev Ed)–Statutory Interpretation–Construction of statute–Literal–Meaning of “paint” in s 3 Vandalism Act (Cap 341, 1985 Rev Ed)–Whether plain meaning to be used
The appellant, Michael Fay (“Fay”), aged 18, pleaded guilty to two charges of vandalism by spraying red paint on two motor vehicles. On conviction, he was sentenced to two months' imprisonment and three strokes of the cane in respect of each charge. For the purposes of sentencing, 20 other charges were taken into consideration, 16 of them being charges of vandalism committed with paint. Fay appealed against the sentences on the grounds that (a) a proper construction of the proviso to s 3 of the Vandalism Act (Cap 341, 1985 Rev Ed) demonstrated that Parliament had no intention of punishing with caning all acts of vandalism committed using paint, and the court in every case had to consider whether the paint used had been proved to be easily removable or not before deciding to inflict the punishment of caning; and (b) the case was one suitable for probation, and the district judge's refusal to so order ran contrary to the legislative intent of the new proviso to s 5 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act (Cap 252, 1985 Rev Ed).
Held, dismissing the appeal:
(1) There was no reason to deviate from the plain meaning of the words of the proviso to s 3 of the Vandalism Act. The proviso was unambiguous in stipulating that an act of vandalism committed with paint, whether of one type or another, attracted a mandatory minimum of three strokes of the cane. To compel the courts to admit in every vandalism case involving paint a plethora of evidence on the delibility or otherwise of the paint used would throw the floodgates open to endless and increasingly convoluted arguments about the exact scientific degree of ease with which any particular type of paint was removed. This would thwart the legislative intent, as stated in the preamble to the Vandalism Act, of providing for “exemplary punishment for acts of vandalism”: at [11].
(2) The wording of the new proviso to s 5 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act demonstrated that the Legislature had entrusted to the courts the discretion to decide the suitability of individual offenders for rehabilitation while weighing also in the balance the wider concerns of society. The circumstances of this case were not such as to warrant an order of probation: at [15] and [17].
McCormick v Horsepower Ltd [1981] 1 WLR 993; [1981] 2 All ER 746 (refd)
Whiteman v Sadler [1910] AC 514 (refd)
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 231, 244
Dangerous Fireworks Act (Cap 72, 1985 Rev Ed) s 3 (1) (a)
Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 34, 411, 427
Probation of Offenders Act (Cap 252, 1985 Rev Ed) s 5 (1) (consd)
Vandalism Act (Cap 341, 1985 Rev Ed) s 3 (consd);s 2
Michael Sherrard QC, R Palakrishnan and Dominic Nagulendran (Palakrishnan & Partners) for the appellant
Jennifer Marie, Eugene Lee and Luke Tan (Deputy Public Prosecutors) for the respondent.
1 The appellant, one Michael Peter Fay, pleaded guilty in the Subordinate Courts to (inter alia) two charges of vandalism, which read as follows:
DAC 15183/93
You, Michael Peter Fay, m/18 yrs
Fin No: F1923331Q
are charged that you, on or about 18 September 1993, between 1.00am and 8.00am, in front of No 15B Chatsworth Road, Singapore, together with Shiu Chi Ho, Stephen Freehill and Harun Sharudin bin Sufian Saufi, in furtherance of the common intention of you all, did commit an act of vandalism, to wit, by spraying paint from spray paint can on a motor vehicle bearing registration No SBN770M, in the possession of Mr Amarjeet Singh, and you have thereby committed an offence under s 3 of the Vandalism Act (Cap 341) read with s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).
DAC 15185/93
You, Michael Peter Fay, m/18 yrs
Fin: F1923331Q
are charged that you, between 17 September 1993 at about 7.00pm and 18 September 1993 at about 7.00am, at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Public Prosecutor v Mohammad Al-Ansari bin Basri
...concerns of society. The judiciary has recognised and put into effect these broad aims of the legislature. For instance, in Fay v PP [1994] 2 SLR 154, Yong CJ, with his customary clarity, put across the point in no uncertain terms (at I do not doubt that the legislative intent behind the am......
-
Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Zulkiflee Bin Mohd Iswadi
...has to strike a balance between public interest and the interest of the offender: Mok Ping Wuen Maurice v PP [1999] 1 SLR 138; Fay v PP [1994] 2 SLR 154. It must be recognised that some young offenders can be calculating in their actions, and severe treatment of such offenders would be 91 T......
-
Public Prosecutor v Goh Da Wei and Another and Another Case
...need to assess the facts in every case: PP v Mok Ping Wuen Maurice [1999] 1 SLR 138, at 143. As stated by Yong Pung How CJ in Fay v PP [1994] 2 SLR 154, at the legislature has entrusted to the courts the discretion to decide the suitability of such offenders for rehabilitation while weighin......
-
Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Shafie bin Ahmad Abdullah and others
...the interests of the law-abiding general public and of applying the law uniformly to all those who violate it”: Fay v Public Prosecutor [1994] 2 SLR 154 at [17]. Thus, where the offence is so serious and the actions of the offender so “contemptible” and committed with “shocking audacity”, t......
-
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION IN SINGAPORE
...words in Planmarine AG v Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore[1999] 2 SLR 1 when it referred to the High Court’s comments in Fay v PP[1994] 2 SLR 154 that “[e]xpress enactment shuts the door to further implication” (at 157). Likewise, in Ho Yean Theng Jill v PP[2004] 1 SLR 254, the High......
-
THE PREVENTION OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY IN SINGAPORE: THE 1990S AND BEYOND
...deterrence, which is the imposition of harsher penalties on the offender to deter him from recidivism. 24 See Fay v Public Prosecutor[1994] 2 SLR 154, an appeal in the High Court against the sentence awarded in the court below. Fay had been sentenced to 2 months imprisonment and a total of ......