Jupiter Shipping Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor

JurisdictionSingapore
Judgment Date12 March 1993
Date12 March 1993
Docket NumberMagistrate's Appeal No 71 of 1992
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Jupiter Shipping Pte Ltd
Plaintiff
and
Public Prosecutor
Defendant

[1993] SGHC 55

Yong Pung How CJ

Magistrate's Appeal No 71 of 1992

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Sentencing–Benchmark sentences–Accused charged under s 7 Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act (Cap 243, 1991 Rev Ed)–Strict liability offence–Fine of $10,000 imposed–Whether sentence manifestly excessive–Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Sentencing–Principles–Strict liability offences–Objective behind sentencing being retribution

The appellant was the agent of a ship which was anchored at the Eastern Special Purposes Anchorage. As the ship was receiving fuel oil from a bunker barge, a sudden overflow resulted in the discharge of an oil slick into Singapore waters which covered an area of 1,500m . The appellant which had paid for the costs of cleaning operations was charged with an offence under s 7 of the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act (Cap 243, 1991 Rev Ed) (“the Act”). For such an offence, the range of fines permitted by the Act ranged from $500 to $500,000. The appellant, a first-time offender without antecedents, pleaded guilty to the offence. In mitigation, it was said that the pollution had been caused accidentally, and that as soon as the spill had been discovered the pumping had been stopped and detergent immediately sprayed. The district judge imposed a fine of $10,000. The appellant appealed against the sentence contending that it was manifestly excessive.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The usual objectives of sentencing and the penal system as a whole, of individual deterrence, general deterrence and reformation had little bearing in the case of strict liability offences such as that under s 7 of the Act. The only objective for the most part behind sentencing for such an offence was retribution: the sentence imposed should be measured by the disapproval of society regarding the nature of the offence committed and the maximum penalties should be reserved for the most serious cases in terms of consequences as well as conduct: at [10] and [11].

(2) In the light of growing awareness of the damaging effects of oil pollution on a national as well as a global scale, and in order to combat this, it was imperative that the courts should regard offences of pollution with the utmost gravity. The fines previously imposed for offences under s 7 (1) of the Act, when taken in the present context, did not accurately reflect the strong public interest in preventing oil pollution. The $10,000 fine imposed below was not manifestly excessive but perfectly reasonable. In such a case where the consequences were serious and there were no aggravating factors, it would be instructive to standardise the penalty at a fine in the region of $10,000: at [12], [13] and [14].

Alphacell Ltd v Woodward [1972] AC 824; [1972] 2 All ER 475; [1972] 2 WLR 1320 (folld)

R v Boyd (1980) 2 Cr App R (S) 234...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Seng Foo Building Construction Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 28 October 2016
    ...in the context of strict liability offences and whether this is such an offence. In Jupiter Shipping Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor [1993] 1 SLR(R) 402 at [11] (cited in Kow Keng Siong, Sentencing Principles in Singapore (Academy Publishing, 2009) (“Sentencing Principles in Singapore”) at para......
2 books & journal articles
  • REQUIREMENT OF FAULT IN STRICT LIABILITY
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 1999, December 1999
    • 1 December 1999
    ...English cases on the equivalent provision were also referred to. See supra, note 36, at paras 20, 21. 52 Jupiter Shipping Pte Ltd v PP [1993] 2 SLR 69, 71. 53 LH Leigh, Strict and Vicarious Liability (1982) p 1; Naranjan Singh v PP[1993] 1 CLAS News 237; PP v Yong Heng Yew[1996] 3 SLR 566, ......
  • Criminal Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2002, December 2002
    • 1 December 2002
    ...of what constitutes a “strict liability offence”. Only a short ten years ago, it was said in the case of Jupiter Shipping Pte Ltd v PP[1993] 2 SLR 69 at 71 that: “The nature of strict liability offences is such that they may be committed even when all reasonable steps have been taken to ens......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT