Mohamed Hisham bin Sapandi v Public Prosecutor

• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 18 August 2011
• Neutral Citation: [2011] SGHC 190
• Citation: [2011] SGHC 190
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 18 August 2011
• Docket Number: Criminal Motion No 42 of 2011
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ramesh Tiwary (Ramesh Tiwary)
• Defendant Counsel: G Kannan and Sanjna Rai (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Bail
• Hearing Date: 03 June 2011,01 July 2011

Choo Han Teck J:

The Applicant is awaiting trial in respect of eight charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) (“MDA”) and three charges under the Moneylenders Act (Cap 188, 1985 Rev Ed.). He was denied bail in the Subordinate Court on the ground that he was charged for an offence punishable with a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment, and that the Subordinate Court has no jurisdiction to grant him bail by virtue of s 95(1)(a) Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Act No 15 of 2010) (“CPC 2010”).

At the hearing of the criminal motion on 3 June 2011, I granted bail provisionally, pending further submissions by the parties on whether the Subordinate Court possessed the requisite jurisdiction to grant bail in this case. The main issue before me was the interpretation of s 95(1)(a). Section 95(1)(a) reads:

An accused shall not be released on bail or on personal bond if he is charged for an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of 20 years or more.

Mr Tiwary, counsel for the Applicant, argued that offences punishable with “imprisonment for a term of 20 years or more” should only mean offences where the minimum sentence is 20 years imprisonment or more. Mr Kannan and Miss Sanjna Rai, the Deputy Public Prosecutors (“DPP”) submitted that s 95(1)(a) encompasses offences with maximum sentences of 20 years or more. The DPP also submitted that s 97(1) of the CPC 2010 allows the High Court an over-riding discretion to grant bail to the Applicant, as the High Court is not constrained by the limitations in s 95(1)(a).

There are accordingly, two questions before me: (a) Whether the phrase “imprisonment for a term of 20 years or more” in s 95(1)(a) of CPC 2010 refers to offences with a maximum sentence of 20 years or more, or offences with a minimum sentence of 20 years or more. (b) Whether the High Court has, under s 97(1) of CPC 2010, the over-riding discretion to grant bail to the Applicant, as it is not constrained by the limitations in s 95(1)(a).

On the first question, I am of the view that the phrase “offences punishable with imprisonment for a term of 20 years or more” should be given its plain and literal meaning and thus refer only to offences with a minimum sentence of 20 years or more. That is to say that the starting point, not the ending point, is 20 years. The contrary interpretation – that it encompasses offences with a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment – offends a plain reading of the phrase as these offences are not punishable with imprisonment for a term of 20 years or more. Offenders in such cases are just liable to imprisonment for up to 20 years. I should reiterate the point here that bail has the role of preserving the “golden thread” in criminal law that a person is innocent until proven guilty, yet ensuring that the accused does not abscond before trial (Abul Khabir Uddin Tohron Nisa v Public Prosecutor [2006] SGHC 57 at [5]). It is not intended to be punitive and must not be so.

As a general rule, the CPC 2010 allows bail to be offered as of right to the accused. However, the discretion of the Subordinate Court to grant bail is removed altogether for the offences falling under s 95(1)(a). Only the High Court has the discretion to grant bail in respect of offences under this provision. So what does the phrase “imprisonment for a term of 20 years or more” mean? The DPP argued that to interpret “imprisonment for a term of 20 years or more” as referring only to offences where the minimum sentence is 20 years or more renders the phrase nugatory. They submitted that since a survey of our penal legislation reveals that currently all the offences attracting minimum sentences of 20 years imprisonment or more are also punishable with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, the phrase would be devoid of meaning unless it was taken to refer to offences with maximum sentences of 20 years or more.

Although the parliamentary debates (when this provision was amended)...