Kua Hoon Chua v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 02 May 1995
• Neutral Citation: [1995] SGHC 117
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 355 of 1994
• Date: 02 May 1995
• Year: 1995
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Narindar Singh (NS Kang)
• Citation: [1995] SGHC 117
• Defendant Counsel: Christine Lee (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: s 12(1) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Offender's tendency to crime,Antecedents comprising three previous convictions including two for cheating,Prison psychologist's report,Forms of punishment,Whether 37 year-old offender too old to undergo corrective training,Whether defence entitled to cross-examine psychologist who made report,Sentencing,Corrective training,Whether upper age limit existed for offenders to be sentenced to corrective training,Eligibility,Conviction of cheating,Purpose of corrective training,Whether appellant's antecedents indicated need for reformation and prevention of crime as to render sentence expedient

The appellant pleaded guilty in the district court to a charge of cheating under s 420 of the Penal Code (Cap 224). The statement of facts tendered by the prosecution alleged that on 13 October 1992, the appellant had deceived his brother-in-law, one Teo Chye Hoe, into believing that he (the appellant) was in a position to start a joint venture business, which deception had induced Teo to give the appellant a cash cheque for the sum of $20,000. Following the appellant`s conviction, the district judge was apprised of his antecedents. The appellant had on his record two previous convictions for cheating under s 420 of the Penal Code, both sustained on 2 July 1979. The sentence imposed in respect of each conviction had been, respectively, one day`s imprisonment and a fine; and it appeared that the appellant, not having been able to pay the fines, had undergone the in default custodial sentences. On 29 April 1985 the appellant had also been convicted in the High Court of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and had received a sentence of ten years` imprisonment.

Before sentencing the appellant, the district judge called for a corrective training report. The report subsequently forwarded to the court stated that the appellant was physically and mentally fit to undergo corrective training and recommended the imposition of such a sentence. Having duly considered the plea in mitigation made by the appellant`s counsel, the district judge sentenced the appellant to five years` corrective training. I dismissed the appellant`s appeal against sentence after hearing the arguments of his counsel and of the deputy public prosecutor. My reasons therefor are set out in the following grounds.

The present appeal

Counsel`s main argument on appeal was based on a ground not set out in the petition of appeal. He submitted that the sentence of corrective training imposed by the district judge was wrong in principle because such sentences were meant to be confined to that category of offenders aged between 18 and 30 years, whereas the appellant in this case was 37 years old. The upper limit of 30 years proposed by counsel was somewhat puzzling, since s 12(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), in providing for sentences of corrective training, requires only in sub-s (a) that the offender in question be `not less than 18 years of age` and that he be `convicted before the High Court or a District Court of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of 2 years or upwards, and has been convicted on at least two previous occasions since he attained the age of 16 years of offences punishable with such a sentence.` (Section 12(1)(b) is not relevant for our purposes.)

In support of his argument, counsel relied on such English decisions as and . A perusal of these cases revealed, however, that none of them established the proposition that an offender over 30 years of age must not be sentenced to corrective training. Nor, indeed, is there any provision in our Criminal Procedure (Corrective Training and Preventive Detention) Rules which indicates that only prisoners aged between 18 and 30 years may be sentenced to undergo...