Muhammad Khalis bin Ramlee v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Sundaresh Menon CJ
• Judgment Date: 11 May 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] SGHC 116
• Plaintiff Counsel: Appellant in person
• Docket Number: Magistrate’s Appeal No 9351 of 2017
• Date: 11 May 2018
• Hearing Date: 08 March 2018
• Subject Matter: Grievous hurt,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Offences,Sentencing,Criminal Law
• Published date: 15 May 2018
• Defendant Counsel: Zhuo Wenzhao and Houston Johannus (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Citation: [2018] SGHC 116
• Year: 2018

Sundaresh Menon CJ:

The appellant was convicted of four charges in the District Court. These comprised two charges of rioting punishable under s 147 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the Penal Code”) (“the first rioting charge” and “the second rioting charge”, collectively “the rioting charges”), one charge of voluntarily causing grievous hurt under s 325 of the Penal Code (“the grievous hurt charge”), and one charge of consumption of methamphetamine under s 8(b)(ii) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the MDA”) (“the drug consumption charge”).

The charges against the appellant arose out of various events that transpired on 24 December 2015, when the appellant, together with various others, was engaged in spontaneous group fights along Circular Road at various times between 2am and 3am. More than 20 persons, including a number of victims, were involved in these fights. 18 persons, including the appellant, were charged with various offences including rioting and voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt as a result of the events of that night. The rioting charges against the appellant arose from his involvement in the fights, while the grievous hurt charge was due to his punching a man, Nelson John Denley (“the deceased”), in a separate incident that took place just as the fights were simmering down. The appellant’s punch caused the deceased to fall to the ground and hit his head on the kerb, which in turn led to severe head injuries and eventually to his death. The appellant’s drug consumption charge arises from a urine sample that was provided to the police after his arrest, which tested positive for methamphetamine.

The appellant pleaded guilty to the two rioting charges and the drug consumption charge but claimed trial to the grievous hurt charge. The District Judge convicted him of all four charges. Upon conviction, the District Judge sentenced him to an aggregate sentence of ten years’ imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane. The District Judge’s decision is published as Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Khalis Bin Ramlee [2017] SGDC 323 (“the GD”). In the present appeal, the appellant challenges the aggregate term of imprisonment to which he was sentenced, on the ground that it is manifestly excessive. He does not appeal against his conviction on the grievous hurt charge although some of his arguments on sentencing make it necessary for me to consider the correctness of that conviction. He also does not appeal against the sentence of caning that was meted out to him.

Although the appeal is against the aggregate sentence of imprisonment, in fact, the main issue in the appeal is the sentence of seven years’ imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane, which was meted out to him in respect of the grievous hurt charge. The appellant essentially contends that the sentence of seven years’ imprisonment is manifestly excessive given that he had delivered just a single punch to the deceased’s face. He also claims that the blow he delivered had been wrongly assessed by the District Judge to be one of great force, when he had not caused any noticeable injury on the deceased’s face.

The Prosecution, on the other hand, submits that the sentence is appropriate having regard to numerous aggravating factors which it contends apply in this case. These include the unprovoked and egregious nature of the attack, the context in which the offence was committed, this being a night of alcohol-related group violence, the appellant’s lack of remorse as well as his extensive criminal record. The Prosecution does acknowledge that previous sentences imposed for the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt have fallen in the range between two and a half years and eight years. In relation to at least some of those cases, the present sentence might seem out of place. But the Prosecution contends that those cases have little precedential value, either because they were decided based on an earlier version of the Penal Code, under which the maximum sentence for the offence was seven years’ and not ten years’ imprisonment, or because they were influenced by an erroneous interpretation of the decision of the District Court in Ho Soo Kok v Public Prosecutor [2002] SGDC 134 (“Ho Soo Kok”). As a result, the Prosecution advances a sentencing framework for the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt under s 325 of the Penal Code that is based on the offender’s culpability and the harm caused. Applying this framework, the Prosecution contends that the appellant’s sentence would be seen to be entirely appropriate.

Having considered the arguments, I allow the appellant’s appeal and substitute his sentence of seven years’ imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane for the grievous hurt charge with a sentence of four and a half years’ imprisonment and eight strokes of the cane. The sentences for the grievous hurt charge and the drug consumption charge are to run consecutively, as the District Judge ordered, yielding an aggregate sentence of seven and a half years’ imprisonment and 20 strokes of the cane. I arrive at my decision for the reasons that follow.

Facts

I begin by briefly recounting the relevant facts. The first three charges relate to two spontaneous group fights that occurred in the early hours of 24 December 2015. The appellant and some of his friends (collectively referred to as “the offenders”) had gathered at a bar named Beer Inn on Circular Road (“the Bar”) for drinks. Some of the accused persons were known to be affiliated with secret societies. However, the events of that night were not related to any such affiliations. At around 2.40am, two of the offenders (“the couple”), who were in a relationship, started quarrelling outside the Bar. They were shouting at and pushing each other. Eight of the others in the group, including the appellant, accompanied the couple and tried to intervene.

The first rioting charge

The dispute outside the Bar attracted the attention of five onlookers in the vicinity. One of the offenders confronted two of the onlookers and demanded to know what they were looking at, and subsequently started punching and kicking them. Five other offenders joined in the attack.

Meanwhile, the appellant was involved in an attack against another onlooker, Akash Kukreja (“Kukreja”), who had walked over to where the couple was standing. The appellant blocked Kukreja’s way and asked him what he wanted. Kukreja replied that he wanted to make sure that the girl in the couple was not hurt. The appellant then went up close to Kukreja and told him to move away, and was met by a push from Kukreja. The appellant in turn punched Kukreja, who tried to retaliate but fell to the ground. Two other offenders joined the appellant and punched and kicked Kukreja while he was on the ground. Kukreja’s companion, Charlotte Roscoe (“Roscoe”), tried to help but she was then punched and kicked by two other offenders. Two more offenders subsequently joined in punching and kicking Kukreja and Roscoe. In total, there were seven offenders, including the appellant, who attacked Kukreja and Roscoe.

At this point, two other onlookers, who had been drinking at a nearby bar, saw Kukreja and Roscoe being attacked and tried to intervene, but they too were assaulted. Two more offenders saw the commotion from the Bar and walked towards the attack. One of them pushed Mark Walsh (“Walsh”), who was the manager of a nearby bar and who had approached the scene of the fight to intervene to stop the fight. The fight eventually stopped with the intervention of Walsh and a bartender working at the Bar. The appellant’s involvement in these events formed the subject matter of the first rioting charge.

The second rioting charge

A short while after the first fight, the appellant and six other offenders left the Bar intending to go to another club. As they were walking away, Kukreja and two other onlookers who had earlier been assaulted, known only as George and Flexy, went back to the Bar intending to confront the offenders. Another fight ensued between Kukreja, George and Flexy and three of the offenders. The appellant, who was together with three other offenders, saw the commotion and rushed back to join this fight.

The appellant together with six other offenders punched and kicked Kukreja, George and Flexy. Kukreja managed to escape but George and Flexy were chased by nine of the offenders, including the appellant. During the chase, one of the offenders threw a bar stool at George and Flexy. George fell down and the appellant and three other offenders then punched and kicked him. George and Flexy eventually managed to escape and ran towards OCBC Centre with the appellant and three other offenders giving chase for some distance. The appellant’s involvement in these events formed the subject matter of the second rioting charge.

The grievous hurt charge

The appellant returned to Circular Road. At that time, another dispute was taking place between a friend of the appellant and a friend of the deceased near the taxi stand on Circular Road (further down from the scene of the two riots). The deceased, who had been observing the first two riots but had not gotten involved, attempted to intervene and mediate in this dispute. The appellant, intending to stop the deceased from intervening, ran towards the deceased and delivered a lunging punch from behind to the lower jaw of the deceased, causing him to fall and land heavily on the road with his head and shoulders hitting the kerb. The appellant then left the scene. Walsh, who had witnessed this attack, testified that the deceased was knocked unconscious by the blow and fell directly to the concrete ground without taking any evasive action to break his fall. He was later sent to the hospital unconscious and found to have sustained severe head injuries. He eventually died from these injuries about a week later on New Year’s Day 2016.

The drug...