Lau Tian Heng v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Roy Grenville Neighbour
• Judgment Date: 17 August 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] SGDC 267
• Year: 2001
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Citation: [2001] SGDC 267
• Court: District Court (Singapore)

JUDGMENT:

Grounds of Decision

1. On 8 Aug 2001, the Accused pleaded guilty to a charge under 33(2) of the Moneylenders Act (Chapter 188) as follows :

DAC No: 17871/2001

[ P-1]

"You, Lau Tian Heng, M/28 yrs
(DOB 12-09-1972)
NRIC No: S 7233294-F;
Nationality: Singapore Citizen
Address: Blk 357 Hougang Ave 7 #02-819

are charged that you on the 28th day of April 2001 at about 3.30 p.m. at Blk 441 Ang Mo Kio Ave 10 #12-1267, Singapore acting on behalf of an illegal moneylender "Ah Peng" did harass one Lim Dy Sai, to wit by banging on her door loudly and threw a flowerpot in front of the said Lim Dy Sai’s house and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 33(2) of the Moneylender’s act (Chapter 188)."

2. The Accused was found guilty and convicted on the charge. He was sentenced to pay a fine of $15,000 (in default 3 months’ imprisonment) and serve 3 months’ imprisonment. The Accused, dissatisfied with the sentence imposed, has appealed. The Accused applied for bail pending appeal. It was granted and bail was set at $15,000 in one surety or $7,500 in two sureties. The Accused has not been able to raise bail.

The Facts

3. The facts pertaining to the charge and to which the accused admitted without qualification are contained in the Statement of Facts[ Exhb A]. The facts revealed that on 28 Apr 2001 at about 3.30 p.m. while one Yam Cheong Keong, a police officer was at his residence at Blk 441, Ang Mo Kio Ave 10, #12-1269 he heard someone banging the window pane to his flat. When he went out to inquire, he saw the Accused outside the neighbouring flat # 12-1267. One Lim Dy Sai, a female aged 58 years occupied the neighbouring flat. The Accused was shouting for the occupants to #12-1267 to open the door. Shortly, the accused was seen picking up and throwing a flowerpot to the floor. When Yam Cheong Keong saw what the Accused had done, he immediately approached the accused and detained him. On the door of the flat #12-1267 was a note " A 441 12-1267 Janet (Automatic call-in, in Chinese characters) 92607288, (7-9 pm)". Mr Yam seized the note.

4. Investigations revealed that at about 12.00 p.m. that same day, the Accused, acting on instructions from one "Ah Peng" an unlicensed moneylender, proceeded to the residence of Lim Dy Sai to look for one Janet to ask for money. When he arrived at Blk 441 Ang Mo Kio Ave 10, he proceeded to unit #12-1269 and knocked on the door. When he realised that he was knocking on the wrong door, the accused proceeded to #12-1267 and banged the front door several times. Mdm. Lim Dy Sai who was in the flat at the time did not open the door but told the accused that the person he was looking for was not staying at the flat. The accused then placed a note on the front door and threw a flowerpot to the ground. After that the accused was detained. Screening with the Registry of Moneylenders revealed that the Accused and the said "Ah Peng" were not issued with a money lending licence.

Antecedent

5. The Accused has one antecedent. On 23 Feb ’95 he was convicted for Mischief, an offence punishable under Section 427 of the Penal Code (Cap 224). He was fined $500. The fine was paid in full.

Mitigation

6. In a written mitigation [Exhb C] it was pointed that the accused was single and living with his aged parents. He had only primary school education and had no skills or qualifications. The background to the commission of the charge of harassment was that the accused was in severe financial difficulties. His earnings of $1,200 as a driver were insufficient to solve his financial woes. Having little education and no special skills did not help in the accused’s endeavours in finding alternative sources of income. Out of desperation he borrowed from illegal moneylenders. When he could not repay the loans, he panicked. The loan sharks suggested that the accused work for them by assisting in the collection of debts. The Accused foolishly decided to take up the offer. The Accused is a first offender. He regretted committing the offence and has pleaded guilty. No violence was used in the commission of the offence. The Court was invited to impose a fine.

Sentencing Principles

7. The Court was mindful of the 4 sentencing principles namely, retribution, deterrence, prevention and rehabilitation laid down by the Court in R v Sergeant [1974] 60 Cr App Rep 74. The Court also considered the 3 objects of sentencing stated in the case of Teo Siew Peng & Or v PP [1985] 2 MLJ 125 i.e. incapacitation of the offender to prevent any recurrence of an offence, reformation of the offender and making the offender afraid of offending.

8. While reformation of an offender is an important consideration, it would have to be considered and balanced with public interest. The English Court of Appeal in Caird [1970] 54 Cr App R 499 dealt with this point by stating :-

"What however, has to be assessed is whether the sentences were, in the view of the Court, in each individual instance appropriate. In each case it has looked at the overall sentence imposed as a whole. The Court has felt bound in each case to give proper weight to the public interest and not simply regard the welfare of the defendant as the paramount consideration."

Therefore, the Court has a duty to weigh the interests of the public with the interests of the individual.

9. In Michael Peter Fay v Public Prosecutor [1994] 2 SLR 154, the Hon. Chief Justice stated: -

" Indeed the delicate balancing of individual needs and community concerns is a crucial factor which, with respect, was not sufficiently highlighted. This court agrees that the administration of justice should be tempered with a keen regard for the needs of the individual as far as the ambit of the law allows. At the...