Liow Eng Giap v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 15 May 1970
• Date: 15 May 1970
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 242 of 1969
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Liow Eng Giap

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[1970] SGHC 5

Choor Singh J

Magistrate's Appeal No 242 of 1969

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Sentencing–Consistency in sentences–Dishonestly retaining and assisting in disposal of stolen property–Appellant sentenced to imprisonment–Accomplice charged with similar offence received only a fine–Whether sentence manifestly excessive–Matters to be taken into consideration in imposing fine

The appellant bought a stolen tractor engine for $6,800 from a man named Low, who had in turn bought it for $2,000 from the person that had first stolen it. The appellant had attempted to sell the stolen property, but did not manage to collect the money prior to his arrest.

The person who stole the property was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. Low was sentenced to a fine of $1000 on a charge of dishonestly receiving stolen property. The appellant was convicted of dishonestly retaining stolen property and sentenced to six months imprisonment. The three offenders were dealt with by different courts. The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence. In respect of the appeal against the sentence, he argued that it was manifestly excessive on two grounds: firstly, the appellant received the same sentence as the original thief, whereas the “first receiver” Low had only received a $1000 fine. Secondly, Low's sentence meant that he had made a profit of $3800 for his crime, whereas the appellant had lost $6,800.

Held, dismissing the appeal but varying the sentence to a fine of $2000 or six months' imprisonment in default:

(1) While the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in law in the light of the facts of the case, it was relatively excessive when compared to the sentences meted out to the other two persons involved in the transaction. Public interest demands that there be some consistency in sentences for committing the same or similar offences. The sentence would therefore be altered to a fine of $2000 with six months' imprisonment in default: at [3].

(2) In determining the quantum of the fine to be imposed on an offender, the judge should always take into consideration the amount of profit made by the accused. The fine should be sufficient to ensure that no profit is made by the accused from his offence: at [3].

PP v Goh Ah Moi [1949] MLJ 155 (refd)

Cheng Tim Pin (Yap & Yap) for the appellant

Tan Teow Yeow (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the...