Lim Kok Hwee v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Suriakumari d/o Sidambaram
• Judgment Date: 16 February 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] SGDC 52
• Year: 2001
• Published date: 19 April 2005
• Citation: [2001] SGDC 52
• Court: District Court (Singapore)

Lim Kok Hwee ...appellant

v

Public Prosecutor ...respondent

Citation:	DAC No 445555-6 of 2000
Jurisdiction:	Singapore
Date:	2001:02:16
	2000:02:13, 2000:02:12, 2000:02:09
Court:	Subordinate Courts
Coram:	Suriakumari Sidambaram, District Judge
Counsel:	Inspector Wong Keng (Prosecuting Officer)
	Mr R Palakrishnan SC and Ms Mary Leong (Defence Counsel)

JUDGMENT:

Grounds of Decision

A. The charge

1. The Prosecution initially had charged the Accused on 2 counts under Section 408 of the Penal Code, Cap 224, but subsequently reduced the charges and proceeded against the Accused on the following amended charges:

(a) DAC 44555/2001 ("P1A")

YOU,

Lim Kok Hwee, m/31 yrs

NRIC NO. S 6915869B

are charged that you on the 28th day of December 1999, at Fraser Transport Pte Ltd, located at No.115 Airport Cargo Road #06-07, Singapore, being entrusted with dominion over a certain property, to wit, a sum of S$4,992.87 (US$3,180.17), did commit criminal breach of trust in respect of the said properties, by dishonestly coverting the said sum of money to your own use and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 406 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

(b) DAC 44556/2001 (P2A)

YOU,

Lim Kok Hwee, m/31 yrs

NRIC NO. S 6915869B

are charged that you on the 17th day of January 2000, at Fraser Transport Pte Ltd, located at No.115 Airport Cargo Road #06-07, Singapore, being entrusted with dominion over a certain property, to wit, a sum of S$3,240.84 (US$1,940.62), did commit criminal breach of trust in respect of the said properties, by dishonestly coverting the said sum of money to your own use and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 406 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

2. The Accused pleaded guilty to the amended charge in DAC 44555/2001 (P1A) and admitted and consented to the amended charge in DAC 44556/2001 (P2A) to be taken into consideration. After having considered the nature and gravity of the charges, the circumstances of the case, the Accused's antecedent records and his mitigation, I sentenced the Accused to 8 month's imprisonment. The Accused being dissatisfied with the sentence is appealing against it.

B. The Facts

3. On the date of the trial of the case, the Accused pleaded guilty to the amended charge ("P1A") in DAC 44555/2001 against him and confirmed that he understood the nature and consequences of his plea. The punishment prescribed by law in respect of the charge was also explained to the Accused.

4. The Prosecution tendered the Statement of Facts (Exhibit "A") the contents of which the Accused admitted unreservedly. The Accused was accordingly found guilty and convicted on the charge against him.

5. The Accused also confirmed that he understood the nature of the amended charge ("P2A") in DAC 44556/2001 that was read and explained to him. He admitted the offence in the amended charge P2A and consented to it being taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing.

C. Antecedents

6. The Prosecution tendered the antecedent report ("B") on the Accused and informed the court that the Accused has previous convictions, that is,

1. on 21 April 1993, in Court 21, the Accused was convicted on the following 3 charges:

(a) 1 count of house breaking and theft by night under Section 457 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code Cap 224 and sentenced to 27 months imprisonment

(b) 1 count of theft under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code Cap 224 and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment; and

(c) 1 count of theft in dwelling under Section 380 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code Cap 224 and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment.

2. on 21 April 1993, the following 3 charges were also taken into consideration by the court for purposes of sentencing the Accused:

(a) 1 count of theft in dwelling under Section 380 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code Cap 224; and

(b) 1 count of theft under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code Cap 224.

7. The court had on that occasion ordered that the imprisonment terms in all the 3 charges proceeded with were to run consecutively. The Accused therefore was ordered to serve a total of 48 months', that is, 4 years imprisonment.

8. The Accused admitted his antecedents.

D. Mitigation

9. In his written mitigation "D1", the Defence Counsel said that the Accused, 31 years old and single, lives with and supports his mother. He added that the Accused left school after his "N" levels and started working after his National Service. He confirmed that the Accused had previously been sentenced to a total of 4 years imprisonment for several offences of housebreaking and theft. He also said that the Accused came from a broken and dysfunctional family and that his father had died by the time he came out of prison in 1996.

10. The Defence Counsel added that the Accused worked as a free-lance agent with the victim company, M/s Fraser Transport Pte Ltd, a freight forwarding company and that the company paid him commissions in cash or by cheque. The Defence did not dispute that the Accused received, on behalf of the victim company, the monies, that is, the sums of S$4,992.87 under the charge "P1A" and S$3,240.84 under the charge "P2A", paid by the victim's Indonesian customer, M/s PT Lien Hwa, on the dates as specified in the 2 charges against him and that he kept the monies for him own use. The Defence also admitted that the Accused left the company soon after in January 2000 without paying over the sums to the company.

11. The Defence Counsel informed the court that the Accused is still in the same line of work and that he now works for another freight forwarding company. He also pointed out that the Accused had made restitution to the victim company but it was undisputed that this was only done just before the Accused was due to be sentenced in this case. The Defence Counsel urged the court to impose a non-custodial sentence on the Accused and cited in support 4 case authorities but the Defence Counsel conceded that all the Accused persons in those 4 cases cited were first offenders.

E. Sentence

12. The offence that the Accused had committed was a serious one. It involved criminal breach of trust. The punishment prescribed for...