Mani Nedumaran and Another v Public Prosecutor
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judgment Date | 17 November 1997 |
| Date | 17 November 1997 |
| Docket Number | Magistrate's Appeal No 254 of 1997 |
| Court | High Court (Singapore) |
[1997] SGHC 349
Yong Pung How CJ
Magistrate's Appeal No 254 of 1997
High Court
Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Sentencing–Discretion to backdate sentence–Considerations relevant when deciding whether to backdate–Whether sentence should be backdated to date of first remand–Section 223 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)–Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Sentencing–Whether imposition of maximum custodial sentence appropriate–Whether plea of guilt, lack of antecedents and inebriation at time of commission of offence should be considered as mitigating factors
The appellants were initially charged with gang robbery, but the Prosecution subsequently replaced this charge with a charge of riotous behaviour under s 20 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Cap 184, 1997 Rev Ed). The appellants pleaded guilty to this charge and were sentenced to one month's imprisonment, the maximum prescribed by the section. The district judge refused to backdate their sentences to the date on which they were first taken into remand.
The appellants appealed against their sentences, alleging, inter alia,that: (a) their sentences should have been backdated; (b) the maximum sentence should not have been imposed; and (c) that their plea of guilt, lack of antecedents and inebriation at the time of the offence should have been considered as mitigating factors.
Held, allowing the appeals and reducing the sentences to a term of 12 days to commence from the date of conviction:
(1) Pursuant to s 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) (“CPC”), a custodial sentence shall take effect from the date on which it was passed, unless the court directs otherwise. Nonetheless, s 223 permits a sentencing court the discretion to backdate a custodial term, and a court should take into consideration any period spent in remand by the accused when contemplating the exercise of this discretion to backdate: at [8] and [9].
(2) This did not mean that a custodial sentence must invariably be backdated to the date when an accused was taken into remand. There are a number of other considerations which are relevant: these included the seriousness of the offence committed and the corresponding demands of public policy as well as the quantum of the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence: at [11].
(3) In the circumstances, the appellants' sentence should have been backdated. However, as such an order would serve no real purpose as the period of custody in remand had already outstripped the maximum term of imprisonment for the offence charged, the term of imprisonment should be reduced to 12 days, to commence from the date of conviction, so that the appellants would be released immediately upon the conclusion of the hearing: at [13] and [15].
(4) There is nothing in s 223 CPC to the effect that backdating may only be allowed where the period spent in remand by an accused is less than or at least equal to the maximum custodial term prescribed for the accused's offence: at [14].
(5) In deciding whether or not to impose the maximum sentence, the court should first “identify a range of conduct which characterises the most serious instances of the offence in question” and then proceed to consider whether the offence committed by a particular accused falls within that range. On the facts, the offence committed clearly fell outside the band of the most serious instances of riotous behaviour and thus, the maximum sentence should not have been imposed: at [16].
(6) A discounted sentence was also warranted having regard to their plea of guilt and their lack of antecedents. However, the fact that the appellants were in a state of inebriation at the time of the offence was not a valid mitigating factor: at [16] and [17].
Balfour v PP [1949] MLJ Supp 8 (refd)
Cheong Seok Leng v PP [1988] 1 SLR (R) 530; [1988] SLR 565 (refd)
R v Bradley (1980) 2 Cr App R (S) 12 (folld)
Sim Gek Yong v PP [1995] 1 SLR (R) 185; [1995] 1 SLR 537 (folld)
Sinniah Pillay v PP [1991] 2 SLR (R) 704; [1992] 1 SLR 225 (refd)
Tang Kin Seng v PP [1996] 3 SLR (R) 444; [1997] 1 SLR 46 (refd)
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 223 (consd)
Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Cap 184, 1997 Rev Ed) s 20
Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 395
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wong Hoi Len v Public Prosecutor
...p 96 that: Intoxication as a mitigating factor is likely to be regarded with scepticism by the courts. (See Mani Nedumaran & Anor v PP [1998] 1 SLR 411.) For crimes of violence and other serious offences, if an offender commits the offence after drinking, the court may well consider it as a......
-
Balasubramanian Palaniappa Vaiyapuri v Public Prosecutor
...either, as the commission of the offence while in a state of self-induced intoxication was not a mitigating factor: Mani Nedumaran v PP [1998] 1 SLR 411. 47 For these reasons, I dismissed the appeal against sentence and enhanced the sentence to 24 months’ imprisonment. Petition dismissed Ap......
-
Koh Boo Ching v Public Prosecutor
...intoxication is not a mitigating factor: see Balasubramanian Palaniappa Vaiyapuri v PP [2002] 1 SLR 314, Mani Nedumaran v PP [1998] 1 SLR 411 at 417, and R v Bradley (1980) 2 Cr App R (S) 12. There was nothing to indicate that Koh was so drunk that he did not know what he was doing. The fac......
-
Balasubramaniam Palaniappa Vaiyapuri v Public Prosecutor
...inebriated state, it is settled law that self-induced intoxication is hardly a mitigating factor: see Mani Neduraman & Anor v PP [1998] 1 SLR 411. 8. Perhaps the accused may not have been conversant with our sentencing norms and particularly the tariff in respect of s 354 offences which inv......