Lim Bee Ngan Karen v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chao Hick Tin JA
• Judgment Date: 16 July 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] SGHC 183
• Year: 2015
• Date: 16 July 2015
• Published date: 21 July 2015
• Hearing Date: 15 April 2015
• Subject Matter: Principles,Sentencing,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
• Plaintiff Counsel: Chan Tai-Hui Jason and Kok Li-en (Allen & Gledhill LLP)
• Citation: [2015] SGHC 183
• Defendant Counsel: April Phang Suet Fern and Nicholas Lai Yi Shin (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Magistrate’s Appeal No 118 of 2014

Chao Hick Tin JA: Introduction

This appeal is set in the context of the sentencing of an offender who engages with other persons (“co-offenders”) in a common criminal enterprise. Should the Public Prosecutor, the respondent in this appeal (“the Respondent”), be under a duty in such a situation to disclose to the court relevant material pertaining to the sentences received by the co-offenders? When and how should the parity principle, which entails that the offenders who participate in a common criminal enterprise should, generally speaking, receive the same sentence, be applied in this context? These questions form the crux of the present appeal, which concerns the sentences imposed by a district judge (“the Sentencing Judge”) on the appellant, Karen Lim Bee Ngan (“the Appellant”), in relation to offences under the Betting Act (Cap 21, 2011 Rev Ed) (“the BA”) and the Common Gaming Houses Act (Cap 49, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the CGHA”). The Appellant contends that the aggregate sentence which the Sentencing Judge imposed on her – viz, ten months’ imprisonment and a fine of $141,000 (in default, 22 weeks’ imprisonment) – is inappropriate or manifestly excessive. Her challenge relates only to the imprisonment term. The Sentencing Judge’s written grounds of decision may be found at Public Prosecutor v Karen Lim Bee Ngan [2014] SGMC 14 (“the GD”).

The factual background

On 28 June 2012 at about 4.30pm, Senior Station Inspector Leong Shee Chun and a party of police officers raided 92 Flora Road, #05-41, Edelweiss Condominium on suspicion that offences under the BA and the CGHA were being or had been committed there.¹ Following the raid, the Appellant was taken to the Criminal Investigation Department (“CID”) for further questioning. While at the CID, she logged on to her online football and 4D betting accounts and printed out some betting records (“the Exhibits”) from www.st999.net.com, www.galaxy188.com and agt.ibc88.com.²

Investigations revealed that the Exhibits related to the Appellant’s illegal 4D betting, 4D bet collection and football bookmaking activities. In early 2010, the Appellant had obtained an online football “Master Agent” account from her brother, Lim Chin-U Keith (“Keith”), and used it to collect football bets. That account, which the Appellant accessed via the website agt.ibc88.com, came with a $1.1m credit limit. Investigations revealed that the Appellant collected football bets from her customers and placed their respective bets into the account. She earned a commission of 20% to 90% of the value of the bets collected whenever her customers lost money on their bets, and settled the bets with Keith using cash.³ It was not clear from the Statement of Facts exactly how much the Appellant earned from the commission received from these bets.

Further investigations revealed that the Appellant had also obtained an online 4D betting account from Keith via the website www.st999.net.com, and used it to purchase and place illegal 4D bets. That account came with a credit limit of $12,000, and the Appellant likewise settled the 4D bets with Keith using cash.⁴ Separately, the Appellant obtained another online 4D account from “Ah Tee”, one Ng Leong Chuan, via the website www.galaxy188.com. The Appellant used this account, which came with a credit limit of $35,000, to collect illegal 4D bets and settled the bets with Ah Tee using cash. She was given a commission of 7% of the value of the bets collected, and an additional 5% when her punters struck 4D bets.⁵

The charges against the Appellant The charges proceeded with by the Respondent

Of the 15 charges brought against the Appellant in total, five charges were proceeded with by the Respondent. I shall refer to each of these five charges as a “Proceeded Charge” so as to distinguish them from the remaining ten charges which were taken into account for the purposes of sentencing.

The facts relating to the first Proceeded Charge

Investigations into the first Proceeded Charge, Magistrate’s Arrest Case (“MAC”) No 9876 of 2013 (“the First Proceeded Charge”), revealed that the printouts from www.st999.net.com related to the Appellant’s illegal “10,000 (4D) characters” lottery betting activities. The betting records showed that the Appellant had received stakes of the following values from punters: 42 “Big” tickets valued at a total of $67.20; and 108 “Small” tickets valued at a total of $75.60.

The bets, which were calculated based on a rate of $1.60 per “Big” ticket and $0.70 per “Small” ticket, were placed against the results of the Singapore Pools 4D Game draw held on 23 June 2012.⁶ The Appellant was charged under s 9(1) of the CGHA in relation to these bets.

The facts relating to the second Proceeded Charge

Investigations into the second Proceeded Charge, MAC No 9878 of 2013 (“the Second Proceeded Charge”), revealed that the printouts from www.galaxy188.com related to the Appellant’s illegal 4D bet collection activities. Those records showed that the Appellant had received bets of the following values from punters: 200 “Big” tickets valued at a total of $320; and 200 “Small” tickets valued at a total of $140.

The bets, which were likewise calculated based on a rate of $1.60 per “Big” ticket and $0.70 per “Small” ticket, were placed against the results of the Singapore Pools 4D Game draw held on 24 June 2012.⁷ The Appellant was charged under s 5(a) of the CGHA in relation to these bets.

The facts relating to the third Proceeded Charge

Investigations into the third Proceeded Charge, MAC No 9881 of 2013 (“the Third Proceeded Charge”), revealed that the printouts from the Appellant’s online football account related to her illegal football bookmaking activities whereby she accepted bets totalling $21,580 to forecast the results of football matches for fixtures held on 16 June 2012 in the following leagues: UEFA Euro 2012; Japan J-League Division 1; Australia Victoria Premier League; Western Australia State League Premier; Australia Brisbane Premier League; USA Major League Soccer; Japan J-League Division 2; and Japan Football League.

According to para 9 of the Statement of Facts, in relation to the above bets, the Appellant earned “a commission of 20% to 90% from the total bet value collected”. I note that this is not entirely consistent with the description at [3] above of the commission payable to the Appellant, but it is what is set out in the Statement of Facts; the same applies to the description at [13] and [15] below of the commission payable to the Appellant. The Appellant was charged under s 5(3)(a) of the BA in relation to the above bets.

The facts relating to the fourth Proceeded Charge

Investigations into the fourth Proceeded Charge, MAC No 9883 of 2013 (“the Fourth Proceeded Charge”), revealed that the printouts from the Appellant’s online football account related to her illegal football bookmaking activities whereby she accepted bets totalling $16,450 to forecast the results of football matches for fixtures held on 18 June 2012 in the following leagues: UEFA Euro 2012; AFC U22 Asian Cup Qualifiers; Women Volvo Winners’ Cup; International Friendly; and Finland Veikkausliiga.

In relation to the above bets, the Appellant similarly earned a commission of 20% to 90% of the total value of the bets collected. On the foregoing facts, she was charged under s 5(3)(a) of the BA.

The facts relating to the fifth Proceeded Charge

Investigations into the fifth Proceeded Charge, MAC No 9886 of 2013 (“the Fifth Proceeded Charge”), revealed that the printouts from the Appellant’s online football account related to her illegal football bookmaking activities whereby she accepted bets totalling $22,500 to forecast the results of football matches for fixtures held on 21 June 2012 in the following leagues: UEFA Euro 2012; Indonesia Super Liga; and Copa Libertadores.

The Appellant likewise earned a commission of 20% to 90% of the total value of the bets collected vis-à-vis the above bets. On the foregoing facts, she was charged under s 5(3)(a) of the BA.

The charges taken into consideration

As mentioned earlier, ten charges (“TIC Charges”) were taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing. Of these ten charges, one was brought under s 9(1) of the CGHA, one was brought under s 5(a) of the CGHA and the remaining eight were brought under s 5(3)(a) of the BA. The bets involved in the eight TIC Charges brought under s 5(3)(a) of the BA, together with the bets that were the subject of the Third to the Fifth Proceeded Charges (which were likewise brought under s 5(3)(a) of the BA), amounted to $133,045 in total (see the GD at [23]).

The decision below The individual sentences imposed by the Sentencing Judge

The individual sentences imposed on the Appellant by the Sentencing Judge in respect of the Proceeded Charges were as follows: For the First Proceeded Charge, the Appellant was sentenced to a fine of $1,000 (in default, one week’s imprisonment) (see the GD at [7]). For the Second Proceeded Charge, the Appellant was sentenced to two weeks’ imprisonment and a fine of $20,000 (in default, three weeks’ imprisonment) (see the GD at [9]). In imposing this punishment, the Sentencing Judge adopted the approach taken in Lim Li Ling v Public Prosecutor [2007] 1 SLR(R) 165 (“Lim Li Ling”), where Tay Yong Kwang J held (at [91]) that sentencing courts “should continue their current practice of imposing both a fine and imprisonment” [emphasis in original omitted] for offences under s 5(a) of the CGHA so as to “adequately deter and punish those who engage in illegal lotteries”. For the Third to the Fifth Proceeded Charges, the Appellant was sentenced in respect of each of these charges to five months’ imprisonment and a fine of $40,000 (in default, six weeks’ imprisonment) (see the GD at [11]). The Sentencing Judge noted that although Lim Li Ling involved an offence under...