Muhammad Fazli Bin Abdul Razak v Public Prosecutor
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Victor Yeo Khee Eng |
| Judgment Date | 09 November 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] SGDC 302 |
| Court | District Court (Singapore) |
| Published date | 25 January 2008 |
| Year | 2007 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Adeline Ee (Deputy Public Prosecutor) |
| Defendant Counsel | S. K. Kumar (S K Kumar & Associates) |
| Citation | [2007] SGDC 302 |
|
09 November 2007 |
|
District Judge Victor Yeo Khee Eng:
Background and Charges
This is an appeal against sentence by the accused.
2. The accused, 18 years of age, pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of rioting under section 147 of the Penal Code, Cap. 224. The charge read as follows:
DAC 23026/2007 – ‘P1A’
“that you, on the 10th day of June 2007, at about 7.00 pm, at car park A, NUH, No. 5, Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, together with five other unknown male Malay subjects, were a member of an unlawful assembly who common object was to cause hurt to one Mohammed Fauzi Bin Saat, Male/ 28 years old, and in the prosecution of the common object of the assembly, you used force by assaulting the aforesaid person and you have thereby committee an offence of rioting punishable under Section 147 of the Penal Code, Cap. 224.”
3. The prescribed punishment for the offence is a mandatory imprisonment term of up to 5 years, and the accused is also liable to caning.
The Statement of Facts
4. The Statement of Facts (Exhibit ‘A’) revealed that on 10 June 2007 at about 4.00pm, the victim, Mohammed Fauzi Bin Saat (‘the victim) went with one Siti Suriani Bte Abd Razak (‘the witness’) to visit his sister who was warded at the National University Hospital (‘NUH’).
5. At about 7.00pm, whilst both of them were walking towards the NUH car park A to collect his motorcycle, the victim heard someone shouting at him from behind. Before he could react, the accused came from behind and punched him on the left rear side of his head. The victim turned and noticed that there were about five other male Malays behind him.
6. The victim tried to flee by jumping over a railing but the accused and his accomplices managed to catch up with him and surrounded the victim.
7. The accused and his accomplices then started raining punches on the victim and also kicked at his body. The victim blocked the blows with both his hands and he also felt a sharp pain on both his arms. The attack lasted for a short while before the accused and his accomplice fled the scene.
8. The victim was then assisted by the witness and some passer-by and was admitted to NUH, Accident & Emergency Department. The victim sustained the following injuries (Medical Report marked Exhibit ‘B’ refers):-
i. Three left sided scalp lacerations over the parietal region, each approximately 3cm long.
ii. Left wrist:
a) Approximately 5cm transverse laceration over wrist dorsum.
b) Lacerations of the extensor carpi radialis longus & brevis, extensor pollicis longus, extensor digitorum, extensor indicis propius and extensor digit minimi at the level of the wrist.
c) Open fracture of the radial styloid.
d) Transection of dorsal radiocarpal ligaments.
iii. Right wrist:
a) Approximately 8cm stellate laceration over the dorsum of the wrist and ulnar side of the hand dorsum.
b) Lacerations of the extensor pollicis longus, extensor digitorum, extensor indicis propius, extensor digit minimi and extensor carpi ulnaris at the level of the wrist.
c) Lacerations of the little, ring and middle finger extensor tendons.
d) Open fractures of the lunate, triquetrum and 5th metacarpal.
e) Lacerated dorsal sensory branch of the ulnar nerve.
iv. Two left foot lacerations measuring 5cm at the heel and 5cm at the arch.
9. The victim underwent toilet and suture of his scalp and foot lacerations as well as reconstructive surgery of both wrists, including fracture fixation with metal implants and tendon repair with sutures.
10. His post-operative course was uneventful and he was discharged three days later with his wounds healing well. The victim was also given an appointment for review.
11. Dr Andre Cheah, the Registrar, Department of Hand and Reconstructive Microsurgery, NUH opined that the victim’s injuries could have been caused by assault with a sharp object used with great force. The injuries sustained would cause pain and significant disability in the short term, especially in his daily living activities. However, it was premature to assess the residual long term disability sustained from these injuries.
12. The accused admitted to being a member of the unlawful assembly whose common object was to cause hurt to the victim, and in the prosecution of the common object, he used violence and assaulted the victim.
Mitigation
13. The learned counsel, in mitigation, highlighted that the accused has pleaded guilty and was remorseful. He was a first offender and was waiting to be enlisted into full-time National Service. The accused is the eldest child in a family of 4 children. His father worked as a driver whilst his mother is a housewife.
14. As for the circumstances leading to the commission of the offence, his learned counsel informed the court that on the date in question, the accused had arranged to meet his friend Issyafiq Bin Zulkifli (‘Issyafiq’) at the NUH taxi stand to visit their friend, ‘Mann’, who was warded at NUH.
15. Shortly, Issyafiq turned up together with Muhammad Haikal Bin Shek Ahmad (‘Haikal’) and Ahmad Dafiq Bin Rahmat (‘Dafiq’). All of them then decided to go to Bugis and play video games instead.
16. As they were walking towards the bus stop, the accused noticed a group of four male Malays standing in the car park. One of them, whom the accused knew, requested the accused to follow him and his friends.
17. The accused agreed and followed the group for a short distance when the group shouted at the victim who was seated on a motorcycle. The accused then punched the victim, who tried to run, but fell when the others assaulted him. The accused joined the group and threw punches and kicked the victim for a brief period.
18. After the attack, the accused walked to a bus stop nearby with Issyafiq, Haikal and Dafiq intending to take a bus to Bugis. Whilst waiting for the bus, the witness, who was with the police in a patrol car, identified the accused as the assailant. All of them where then placed under arrest by the police.
19. His learned counsel submitted that the accused was not a member of any secret society, that the offence was a one-off incident, that it was not pre-meditated, and that his role was minimal as he was not the person who used the sharp object to inflict the injuries. His learned counsel further urged the court to call for a probation report in view of his age and that he was a first offender.
20. The prosecution submitted that probation was not appropriate for the accused in view of the circumstances of the offence and the severity of the injuries sustained by the victim.
21. Having regard to the accused’s age and his lack of antecedents, I was prepared to call for a Probation Report and an RTC report to determine his suitability for probation as well as reformative training, bearing in mind that the calling for a pre-sentence report did not inevitably mean that probation would be ordered, even if so recommended by the probation officer. The court must still exercise its discretion judiciously to determine the appropriate sentence. In some circumstances, the court may well conclude that an imprisonment term was warranted.
Probation Report & RTC Report
22. The probation officer recommended probation for the accused. The probation report revealed that the accused resides with his parents and his three younger sisters. Both parents were lax and permissive in their parenting style.
23. The accused’s conduct was good during his Secondary School. He was reported to be diligent, had a positive outlook to life, and was loyal and well-liked by his peers. The accused took up a NITEC course at ITE College West (Ang Mo Kio) but left the course after one term as he did not like the course and often played truant. He worked for several months as a cargo assistant at Changi Cargo Complex but was dismissed for poor performance. Thereafter, he could not find a permanent job and worked about four days in a week as a deliveryman pending his enlistment into National Service.
24. The accused joined the members of the’369’ secret society operating at Old Kallang Airport Road in 2006. He admitted to having been involved in a fight with the gang members but claimed that he did not contact them after the commission of the present offence. He enjoyed playing arcade games, billiard and street soccer, and he patronised clubs once a month and kept late nights during weekends as his parents did not set any time curfew for him.
25. The probation officer assessed that the accused was too obliging to his friends and was blinded by his misplaced sense of loyalty and failed to give any thought to his illegal acts. The probation officer opined that the accused’s association with members of the secret society was evidence of his indiscriminate choice of friends. His parents were supportive of him and realised the need to pay more attention on his peers association and activities. The probation officer assessed the accused to be suitable for a community rehabilitation programme given the presence of family support and home environment.
26. As for the RTC report, it also revealed that the accused was affiliated to the ‘369’ secret society group operating at Choa Chu Kang. He claimed to have left the group the same year that he joined because of their bad influence. The report further revealed that the accused started smoking cigarettes in 2005. He smoked about seven sticks per day but did not abuse any controlled drugs nor consumed alcohol. He claimed that he had committed the offence because of peer pressure.
27. The accused was found to be physically and mentally fit to undergo Reformative Training and he was assessed to be suitable to undergo Reformative Training.
Sentencing Considerations
28. In deciding on the appropriate sentence, I was mindful of the sentencing considerations when dealing with young offenders. In PP v Mok Ping Wuen Maurice
“Rehabilitation is the dominant consideration where the offender is 21 years and below....
To continue reading
Request your trial