Ng Kwok Fai v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 05 February 1996
• Neutral Citation: [1996] SGHC 24
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 383/95/01
• Date: 05 February 1996
• Year: 1996
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Peter Keith Fernando (Leo Fernando)
• Citation: [1996] SGHC 24
• Defendant Counsel: Lee Sing Lit (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Reformative training,Sentencing,Imprisonment,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Whether sentence of imprisonment consecutive with reformative training appropriate

This is an appeal against sentence only. The facts are undisputed. The appellant was placed on probation for 18 months on 28 June 1995 after he pleaded guilty to a charge, under s 147 of the Penal Code (Cap 224), of rioting with hurt in DAC No 11081/95. The statement of facts showed that he played an active role in the offence and that he had struck the victim on the head with a wooden stick.

On 13 October 1995, the appellant was charged in DAC No 16679/95 with an offence of unlawful assembly with the common object of committing affray, punishable under s 143 of the Penal Code. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to undergo reformative training. On 28 November 1995, he was taken before the district judge for breaching his probation order due to his conviction for the s 143 offence. In view of the appellant`s youth, the district judge sentenced him to 18 months` imprisonment and six strokes of the cane, the sentence to begin after the appellant completes his reformative training. The appellant appealed against this sentence.

There does not appear to be any local case dealing with this situation. However, s 13 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) (CPC) is based on the system of Borstal training in the United Kingdom, under s 20 of the Criminal Justice Act 1948, which has since been abolished. A perusal of the relevant cases on Borstal training reveals a number of applicable principles.

In R v Fry, George Thomas (1954) 38 Cr App R 157, the accused had been given a conditional discharge for an earlier offence of larceny. He was subsequently convicted of storebreaking and larceny and sentenced to Borstal training. He was also before Quarter Sessions for breach of the conditional discharge. The court declined to pass any sentence, taking the view that a substantial sentence of imprisonment would be inconsistent with the Borstal training. The Court of Appeal agreed that a substantial sentence of imprisonment would indeed be inconsistent with the Borstal training. However, it expressed the view that a nominal sentence of one day`s imprisonment should have been passed as otherwise the offence for which the appellant was conditionally discharged would not rank as a conviction.

A similar approach was taken with respect to corrective training under s 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 1948 in R v Sokell [1965] Crim LR 562. A substantial prison term consecutive to corrective training was held to be undesirable as the imprisonment would undo whatever value was obtained from the training. However, in that case, the court ordered the prison sentence to begin immediately.

In my view, the same principle is applicable here. It seems quite clear that the whole basis of sentencing the appellant to reformative training is that the appellant is considered to be amenable to reform. The length of reformative training is governed by Sch D to the CPC. In short, the appellant would be detained for such period not exceeding three years as the Visiting Justices may determine, provided that the period shall not be less than 18 months except by direction of the President. He would then be subject to supervision until the expiration of four years from the date of sentence.

It seems quite apparent that a lengthy prison term after the appellant is released from reformative training would run counter to the aim of reformative training, as it could well undo what the reformative training is meant to do. The same is even more true of caning. In addition, it would be unfair to the appellant as the prospect of caning would...