Fu Foo Tong and Others v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chao Hick Tin J
• Judgment Date: 04 January 1995
• Neutral Citation: [1995] SGCA 1
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 35 of 1994
• Date: 04 January 1995
• Year: 1995
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: First appellant in person
• Citation: [1995] SGCA 1
• Defendant Counsel: Wee Pan Lee (Wee Tay & Lim),Ramesh Tiwary (Leo Fernando),Low Kuang Ting (John Tan & Winston Low),Jasbender Kaur (Deputy Public Prosecutor),Christine Lim Siaw Soon (Palakrishnan & Pnrs)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Application of the 'totality principle',Court's discretion as to how many sentences should run consecutively,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Protection of public an exception to general rule,Separate charges for each individual robbed at the same time,Whether a discount mandatory,'One transaction rule',Applicability of rule,Concurrent or consecutive sentences,Plea of guilty,Offenders convicted of different offences,Sentencing,Different minimum and maximum custodial sentences for the offences,Joint trial of offenders,Gang and armed robbery,Principles,Relevance of distinction in sentencing offenders jointly

The appellants appealed against the sentences imposed on them by the learned judge on their `pleas of guilt` on the charges of gang robbery and armed robbery with which they were respectively charged. We varied the sentences in the manner as appears hereafter and now give our reasons.

Between the months of May and July 1993 there were a spate of robberies committed late at night at various billiard saloons. These appellants were arrested on 7 July 1993 in connection with these robberies. The first to fifth appellants were charged with six counts each of gang robbery, an offence punishable under s 395 of the Penal Code (Cap 224), with imprisonment for a term of not less than five years and not more than 20 years and also punishable with caning with not less than 12 strokes. In respect of four of these counts there was another person who was not apprehended. The sixth and seventh appellants were charged with six counts each of armed robbery, committed with two other persons, an offence punishable under s 392 of the Penal Code read with s 397, that is to say in the circumstances of the charges, the offences being committed after 7pm and before 7am, with imprisonment for a term of not less than three years and not more than 14 years and also punishable with caning with not less than 12 strokes. Section 397 of the Penal Code provides:

If at the time of committing ... robbery, the offender is armed with or uses any deadly weapon ... such offender shall be punished with caning with not less than 12 strokes, in addition to any other punishment to which he may be liable under any other section of this Code.

The two other persons who were associated with the sixth and seventh appellants in the six charges of armed robbery with which they were charged, as the statement of facts revealed, were in fact the first and second appellants. All the appellants, except for the first appellant who remained outside the several billiard saloons where the robberies were committed, were armed with parangs at the time of committing the robberies. The first appellant on all occasions was the driver of the `getaway` car.

The mode of operation of the robberies in each case was identical. The appellants engaged in the particular robbery would arrive at the particular billiard saloon in a rented car, driven by the first appellant, normally around midnight, and whilst the first appellant waited in the car the appellants engaged in that particular robbery would rush into the billiard saloon with their faces masked with some form of hood or covering, wielding the parangs with which they were armed and shouting `robbery` in the Hokkien dialect. They would then hustle the persons present in the billiard saloon into a corner, relieve them of any money and valuables they had with them, and make a quick exit. Except in one or two cases no one was hurt and then not seriously, but they were always threatened with the parangs. It was said that during these months the appellants had relieved their victims of money and valuables worth $123,718.70 of which valuables worth $3,878 only had been recovered.

For the purposes of sentencing numerous other charges were taken into consideration, with the consent of each appellant, as follows:

First appellant: 36 charges of gang robbery under s 395 of Penal Code.

38 charges of robbery under s 392 of Penal Code.

1 charge of fraudulent possession of property under s 35 of Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Cap 184, 1990 Ed).

Total 75 charges.

Second appellant: 30 charges of gang robbery under s 395 of Penal Code.

3 charges of armed robbery under ss 392 and 397 of Penal Code.

1 charge of fraudulent possession of property under s 35 of Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act.

Total 34 charges.

Third appellant: 30 charges of gang robbery under s 395 of Penal Code.

1 charge of armed robbery under ss 392 and 397 of Penal Code.

Total 31 charges.

Fourth appellant: 30 charges of gang robbery under s 395 of Penal Code.

41 charges of armed robbery under ss 392 and 397 of Penal Code.

1 charge of fraudulent possession of property under s 35 of Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act.

Total 72 charges.

Fifth appellant: 29 charges of gang robbery under s 395 of Penal Code.

3 charges of armed robbery under ss 392 and 397 of Penal Code.

1 charge of fraudulent possession of property under s 35 of Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act.

Total 33 charges.

Sixth appellant: 34 charges of armed robbery under ss 392 and 397 of Penal Code.

Seventh appellant: 33 charges of armed robbery under ss 392 and 397 of Penal Code.

The learned judge sentenced the first and second appellants to eight years` imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane on each of the six charges with effect from 7 July 1993 and directed that the sentences were to run consecutively except that the sentence on the third charge would run concurrently with the sentence on the second charge and the sentence on the sixth charge would run concurrently with the sentence on the fifth charge. Accordingly, the first and second appellants would serve a total of 32 years` imprisonment with effect from 7 July 1993 and be subject to 24 strokes of the cane vide s 230 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68). He sentenced the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh appellants to six years` imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane on each of the six charges with effect from 7 July 1993 and directed that the sentences were to run consecutively except that in the case of the third, fourth and fifth appellants the sentence on the third charge was to run concurrently with the sentence on the second charge and the sentence on the sixth charge was to run concurrently with the sentence on the fifth charge. In the case of the sixth and seventh appellants the sentence on the third charge was to run concurrently with the sentence on the second charge and the sentence on the fifth charge was to run concurrently with the sentence on the fourth charge. Thus the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh appellants would serve a total of 24 years` imprisonment with effect from 7 July 1993 and be subject to 24 strokes of the cane vide s 230 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

At the appeal all the appellants were represented by counsel except for the first appellant who appeared in person. After hearing the first appellant and the submissions of counsel we varied the sentences imposed by the learned judge as follows:

First and second appellants: We confirmed the sentence of eight years` imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane on each of the six charges with effect from 7 July 1993 imposed by the learned judge but varied it to the extent that the sentence on the fifth charge would run concurrently with the sentences on the first, second and fourth charges while the sentences on the third and sixth charges would run consecutively and consecutively with the sentences on the first, second, fourth and fifth charges which would run concurrently.

Thus the first and second appellants would serve a total of 24 years` imprisonment with effect from 7 July 1993 and be subject to 24 strokes of the cane.

Third and fourth appellants: We reduced the sentence on each of the six charges to five years` imprisonment with effect from 7 July 1993 and confirmed the sentence of 12 strokes of the cane on each of the six charges imposed by the learned judge and further varied it to the extent that the sentence on the fifth charge would run concurrently with the sentences on the first, second and fourth charges while the sentences on the third and sixth charges would run consecutively and consecutively with the sentences on the first, second, fourth and fifth charges which would run concurrently.

Thus the third and fourth appellants would serve a...