Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Sundaresh Menon CJ |
Judgment Date | 12 May 2017 |
Neutral Citation | [2017] SGCA 37 |
Year | 2017 |
Date | 12 May 2017 |
Published date | 13 June 2017 |
Hearing Date | 24 October 2016,07 July 2016 |
Subject Matter | Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing,Benchmark sentences |
Plaintiff Counsel | Subir Singh Grewal and Jasmin Kang (Aequitas Law LLP) |
Defendant Counsel | Rajaram Vikram Raja (Drew & Napier LLC) as amicus curiae.,Francis Ng SC, Charlene Tay Chia, Yvonne Poon, Sarah Shi, Randeep Singh Koonar and Torsten Cheong (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Citation | [2017] SGCA 37 |
Docket Number | Criminal Appeal No 16 of 2015 |
For the last ten years, courts in Singapore have, for the most part, sentenced rape offenders in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the High Court in
By and large, the introduction of the NF Framework has brought a measure of consistency in the sentences imposed in rape offences. This can be seen in the very thorough analysis of the decided cases set out in the Prosecution’s submissions. That said, it has been ten years since the framework was first propounded and the present appeal has provided an opportunity for us to review it, if for no reason other than to ensure that it is still valid in light of subsequent developments in the law. This will also give us an opportunity to address several recurrent problems – many of which are raised in this appeal –in relation to the application of the NF Framework. These include the complaint that the four categories do not adequately cover the full range of circumstances under which the offence of rape could arise, thus leading to a clustering of sentencing outcomes as well as the perception that the NF Framework does not provide adequate guidance in cases of statutory rape.
At the first hearing of this appeal, we notified counsel of our intention to undertake a review of the sentencing framework for the offence of rape and invited further submissions on whether, and if so, how, the NF Framework should be revised. Additionally, we also invited Mr Rajaram Vikram Raja (“Mr Rajaram”) to act as
This judgment will be divided into three parts. The first part will discuss the law and the sentencing practice of the courts at the present moment. We will outline the problems with the NF Framework and set out the case for reform. The second part sets out the revised approach which will replace the NF Framework (“Revised Framework”). We will explain the considerations that we took into account in the design of the Revised Framework and will elaborate how we envisage it will apply in practice, using illustrative examples drawn from previously decided cases. The final part of the judgment will address the appeal brought by the Appellant against the sentence of 13 years’ imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane imposed on him for the count of statutory rape under s 375(1)(
In order to properly understand the NF Framework, it is necessary to go back to the earlier decision of this court in
… The court should then consider in turn the mitigating factors which merit a reduction of the sentence, of which a guilty plea which saves the victim from further embarrassment and suffering will be an important consideration and will merit a reduction of one-quarter to one-third of the sentence; and whether there were other factors such as the victim’s youth or the accused person’s position of responsibility and trust towards her, or perversions or gross indignities have been forced on the victim, which justify a longer sentence.
At this point, we pause to note that when Yong CJ used the expression “starting point”, we think what he had in mind was a benchmark sentence that was broadly appropriate for the offence of rape in general, absent consideration of any aggravating or mitigating factors (
The approach in
The four categories proposed by Rajah J, and the starting points applicable to each, are as follows:
Apart from the advantages of consistency and predictability, Rajah J held that the promulgation of benchmark sentences would also serve the aim of general deterrence, by informing would-be offenders of the likely punishment facing them (at [39]). However, he stressed that the NF Framework “should never be applied mechanically, without a proper and assiduous examination and understanding of the factual matrix of the case” (at [43]). He explained that the court ought always to have regard to the presence of any “
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Public Prosecutor v Ibrahim bin Bajuri
...factors. The typical framework consists of a 2-step sentencing bands framework as found in Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor [2017] SGCA 37 at [73(a), (c) and (d)].24 At the first step, the court should have regard to the offence-specific factors in deciding which band the offence in......
-
Public Prosecutor v Rozilawaty binte Eddy Rosmanah
...factors. The typical framework consists of a 2-step sentencing bands framework as found in Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor [2017] SGCA 37 at [73(a), (c) and (d)].33 At the first step, the court should have regard to the offence-specific factors in deciding which band the offence in......
-
Public Prosecutor v Natarajan Baskaran and Venkatachalam Thirumurugan
...sentencing. The typical framework consists of a 2-step sentencing bands framework as found in Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor [2017] SGCA 37 at [73(a), (c) and (d)].5 At the first step, the court should have regard to the offence-specific factors in deciding which band the offence ......
-
Public Prosecutor v Adaikalaraj a/l Iruthayam
...might well be cases which will eventually be assessed to straddle the border between the bands: Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor [2017] SGCA 37 at [48]. The analytical framework of (i) harm,131 (ii) culpability,132 and (iii) mitigating/ aggravating factors is helpful for sentencing.......
-
JUDICIAL DECISION-MAKING AND EXPLAINABLE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
...Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik [2008] 1 SLR(R) 601 at [81]–[84]. 93 See, eg, Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor [2017] 2 SLR 449 at [25]–[38]. 94 [2015] 5 SLR 122. 95 Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed. 96 The use of graphs by judges in explaining sentencing decisions also has ot......
-
Revenue and Tax Law
...This approach has been adopted by more recent cases including the Court of Appeal decision in Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor [2017] 2 SLR 449, which See Kee Oon J also cited. 14 Tan Song Cheng v Public Prosecutor [2021] 5 SLR 789 at [37]. 15 Tan Song Cheng v Public Prosecutor [202......
-
Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
...Prosecutor [2017] 2 SLR 115 at [26]. 142 Suventher Shanmugam v Public Prosecutor [2017] 2 SLR 115 at [29]. 143 [2006] 4 SLR(R) 849. 144 [2017] 2 SLR 449. 145 Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor [2017] 2 SLR 449 at [39]. 146 Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor [2017] 2 SLR 449 at [......
-
Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
...205 Ye Lin Myint v Public Prosecutor [2019] 5 SLR 1005 at [42]. 206 Ye Lin Myint v Public Prosecutor [2019] 5 SLR 1005 at [43]–[45]. 207 [2017] 2 SLR 449. 208 Ye Lin Myint v Public Prosecutor [2019] 5 SLR 1005 at [47]. 209 Ye Lin Myint v Public Prosecutor [2019] 5 SLR 1005 at [49]. 210 Ye L......