Lai Oei Mui Jenny v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 10 July 1993
• Neutral Citation: [1993] SGHC 157
• Date: 10 July 1993
• Subject Matter: Financial hardship of accused a mitigating factor only in very exceptional or extreme circumstances,Newton hearings,No financial gain from criminal act a legitimate mitigating factor but carries little weight,Weight to be attributed to it to be at court's discretion,Mitigation,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 30/93/01
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Sheik Mustafa Hassan (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Choo Si Sen (Choo & Joethy)

On 12 January 1993 the appellant pleaded guilty in the district court to a charge of giving false information to a public servant in 1989, contrary to s 182 of the Penal Code (Cap 224). She had made a false police report stating that she had lost her Singapore passport, when in fact she had sold it for $500 while in need of money. The maximum penalty under s 182 of the Penal Code was a $1,000 fine and 6 months` imprisonment. She told the district court that she had to look after two children and had a heart ailment and a gastric ulcer.

She was convicted and sentenced to two months` imprisonment, and appealed against this sentence as being manifestly excessive. I dismissed the appeal and now give reasons for my decision.

Before this court, counsel for the appellant relied upon several arguments which had not been put before the district court, when the appellant had been unrepresented. She had made no financial gain and had in the past contributed voluntary public service. I considered these factors to be legitimate mitigating factors but of very little weight.

Counsel also contended that the district judge had taken into account matters that were irrelevant and adverse to the appellant, because he had said in his grounds of decision that traffic in Singapore passports was not only difficult to curb, but also prejudicial to the reputation of our passports and the convenience of Singapore citizens when travelling abroad. It was submitted that these were not facts before the district court and so could not be taken into consideration for the purposes of sentence. I had no difficulty rejecting this argument for confusing what are plainly general policy considerations with factual considerations.

Of particular concern to me were two arguments, first, that the appellant had only been driven to commit the offence she pleaded guilty to as a result of financial hardship and, second, that as she was the mother of two young children, undue hardship would be caused by the sentence.

I considered a number of references in support of the legitimacy of financial hardship in mitigation of sentence. In R v Oakes, an unreported case of 1974, the UK Court of Appeal reduced from two years to 15 months the sentence imposed upon an appellant, a car salesman, who had pleaded guilty to two counts of theft and one of obtaining by deception. Apparently he had overstretched his financial resources in an attempt to regain his wife, who had left him. Having committed himself to debts he could not possibly repay, he kept back money paid to him on behalf of his principal, amounting to a total of £960. Boreham J said:

It was urged upon us that this man is going through a period of deep emotional stress and severe financial stringency. There is no doubt that this court can accept that. He is put before us as a man who

...