Loh Kok Siew v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 31 May 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] SGHC 121
• Docket Number: Criminal Motion No 8 of 2002
• Date: 31 May 2002
• Year: 2002
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ang Sin Teck (Ang Sin Teck & Co)
• Citation: [2002] SGHC 121
• Defendant Counsel: Wong Kok Weng (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Sentence of imprisonment,Whether to exercise discretion in applicant's favour,Applicable considerations in exercise of discretion,s 223 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing,Normal reprieve granted in postponement of sentence,Exercise of court's discretion in allowing further postponement of commencement of sentence,When sentence commences,Whether burden on applicant to justify further postponement

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

This was a criminal motion by the applicant seeking an alteration of the High Courts order dated 26 March 2002 that the applicant surrender himself to prison authorities and commence serving his sentence of imprisonment on 3 June 2002.

The facts

2 The applicant is the general manager of Dennis General Contractor Pte Ltd ("Dennis General Contractor"), a sub-contractor involved in the construction of the Chinatown station along Singapores proposed North East Mass Rapid Transit ("MRT") rail line which is slated for completion at the end of 2002. At or about March 2001, Dennis General Contractor was awarded a contract to supply and install the roof system and various glazing works of the Chinatown station and related commercial developments.

3 Following a trial, on 25 August 2001, the applicant was convicted by a district court of four charges of abetment by conspiracy to cheat, punishable under s 109 read with s 420 of the Penal Code (Cap 224). In total, he was sentenced to three years imprisonment. Bail was granted pending his appeal against conviction.

4 On 26 March 2002, however, counsel for the applicant appeared before the High Court and applied for leave to withdraw the applicants appeal. I granted the application.

5 Counsel also applied for leave to postpone the commencement of the sentence of imprisonment for two months so as to allow the applicant time to complete outstanding works awarded to Dennis General Contractor by the end of May 2002. Leave was granted and the applicants sentence was postponed and ordered to commence on 3 June 2002. Bail was accordingly extended.

6 On 21 May 2002, the applicant filed the current criminal motion for an alteration of the 26 March 2002 order that he be allowed to commence serving his sentence on 1 August 2002 instead. On 23 May 2002, I heard and dismissed the application. I now give my reasons.

The criminal motion

7 Section 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) ("CPC") states:

Date of commencement of sentence

223. Subject to the provisions of this Code and of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, every sentence of imprisonment to which section 221 or 222 apply shall take effect from the date on which it was passed, unless the court passing the sentence or when there has been an appeal the appellate court otherwise directs.

8 The usual position is therefore clear: unless the sentencing court or the appellate court exercises its discretion to postpone the commencement of a sentence of imprisonment, sentence shall take effect from the date on which it is passed. An exception is provided in s 234(1) of the CPC where, if a person who is an escaped convict or is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced to imprisonment, the latter sentence of imprisonment shall commence either immediately or at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he was previously sentenced as the court awarding the sentence directs.

9 In the recent case of Lim Teck Leng Roland v PP [2001] 4 SLR 61, Roland Lim was convicted of a number of traffic offences. After having been granted an order allowing him to delay the commencement of his sentence of imprisonment by two weeks to settle personal and work matters, he applied to court on the due date for an order that sentence be postponed for a further two weeks. While noting that I was able to alter my own previous decision and grant an alteration of that order to provide for a further postponement of the commencement of the sentence, I rejected Roland Lims application and stated at 16 :

However, this still leaves the issue of when and in what circumstances the High Court would consider a further extension of time before serving the sentence. It would be impossible to lay down a clear-cut guideline. It is possible that during the period of extension, the applicant may suffer from illness which necessitates treatment in hospitals or other places where better facilities are available. It might be that a further extension would be justifiable as the applicants close relative or a member of immediate family happened to suffer from serious illness. Different conditions and circumstances could arise that would necessitate or justify an order of further extension of time before serving the sentence. Ultimately, the court would be guided by whether the interests of justice require that discretion be exercised to allow the applicant a further period of time before he serves his sentence. At the same time, the court must take a robust approach and ensure that the discretion not be abused by frivolous requests from the applicant. The burden is always on the applicant to show...