Lim Sin Han Andy v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 01 April 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] SGHC 54
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 302 of 1999
• Date: 01 April 2000
• Year: 2000
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Thomas Tham Kok Leong (Thomas Tham & Co)
• Citation: [2000] SGHC 54
• Defendant Counsel: Wan Wai Yee (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether appellant's lack of criminal antecedents carries mitigating value,Whether public interest involved in National Service justifies deterrent sentence,Failure of appellant to attend at place of duty without leave,s 48(1) Civil Defence Act (Cap 42),Mitigation,Sentencing,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing

: The appellant was convicted on the following charge in the district court by Kow Keng Siong:

You, Andy Lim Sin Han M/22 yrs NRIC No 7724864/A are charged that you, being a full-time national serviceman in the Singapore Civil Defence Force and subject to the Civil Defence Act (Cap 42), whilst having been notified to report for duty at PSA Pasir Panjang Worksite, Singapore, did from 12 August 1996 to 20 October 1999 fail to attend at your place of duty without leave, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 48(1) of the said Act.

The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to 18 months` imprisonment.

The facts

The appellant was a full-time national serviceman in the Singapore Civil Defence Force. Accordingly, he was subject to the Civil Defence Act (Cap 42).

On 19 January 1996, the appellant was told to report for his national service duty at the Pasir Panjang Worksite, Jalan Bahar Camp, Singapore, with effect from 19 January 1996 until further notice. The appellant reported for his duty from 19 January 1996 until 11 August 1996. After that, he failed to report for duty at the designated place of duty from 12 August 1996 continuously without leave until the day he surrendered to the police on 21 October 1999.

During the period of absence between 12 August 1996 and 20 October 1999, a period of three years, two months and nine days, the appellant did not have a legitimate reason or any medical exemption to justify his absence.

The decision below

The trial judge found the appellant guilty on the charge and convicted him accordingly.

The appellant raised several factors in mitigation in the district court. First, he informed the court that he did not have any criminal antecedent. He had also pleaded guilty. Further, he said that, at the time of the offence, he had to work to support his child, who had turned two years old by the time of his conviction. He had also surrendered himself to the authorities and accordingly he pleaded for leniency.

The trial judge did not accord significant weight to the fact that he was a first offender in view of the observations in PP v Tan Fook Sum [1999] 2 SLR 523 and Xia Qin Lai v PP [1999] 4 SLR 343 at [para ] 27. As stated in PP v Tan Fook Sum at [para ] 32:

... it may be said that the weight to be given [to the fact that the respondent has no previous conviction] would be greater if there were positive evidence as to character rather than the negative inference from the absence of allegations of other convictions. Contrariwise ... being of good character is irrelevant as a mitigating factor but relevant as an aggravating factor in that the offence is so much greater because the offender should have known better.

Accordingly, the fact that the appellant had no previous conviction was not considered a relevant mitigating factor.

However, the trial judge considered the appellant`s plea of guilt and his surrender to the police to be in his favour in determining the sentence as these factors were indicative of genuine remorse on his part.

As regards the appellant`s...