Norhafizah binte Raziki Public Porsecutor
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Malcolm Tan Ban Hoe |
| Judgment Date | 31 October 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] SGDC 286 |
| Year | 2002 |
| Published date | 19 September 2003 |
| Citation | [2002] SGDC 286 |
| Court | District Court (Singapore) |
Judgment
GROUNDS OF DECISION
This is an appeal against sentence by the Accused.2. The Accused originally faced four charges of extortion with common intention under section 384 read with section 34 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224. On 23rd August 2002, the Prosecution amended the charges in such a manner that the second and third charges were amalgamated into a single charge [DAC 22289A/2002]. She then pleaded guilty to two charges [DAC 21312/2002 and DAC 22289A/2002]. She was granted a discharge amounting to an acquittal after the Prosecution withdrew the fourth charge against her [DAC 23704/2002].
3. She was not the only person who pleaded guilty before me that day. Three other Accused persons (Mr. S Mohammed Jeawdeen s/o PA Sultan, Mr. Zulkifli bin Ibrahim and Ms Nur Hidayati binte Abdul Razak) pleaded guilty to a combination of similar offences after the charges against them were amalgamated, amended or withdrawn1.
4. All four of them admitted to the Amalgamated Statement of Facts [Exhibit A] without qualifications. I accordingly convicted them on the respective charges against them. After hearing their pleas in mitigation, I proceeded to sentence the two male Accused to a term of 30 months’ imprisonment and 3 strokes of the cane for each of the two charges against them. I further ordered the two sentences to run consecutively, making a total of 5 years’ imprisonment with effect from 30th April 2002 and six strokes of the cane. As for the female co-Accused (Nur Hidayati), I imposed a term of 30 months’ imprisonment for the single charge against her.
5. Counsel for the Accused prayed that the Court call for a pre-sentence report (PSR) before sentencing. DPP Wong Kok Weng had no objections. I accordingly adjourned sentencing for a PSR.
6. On 19th September 2002, the Accused returned to Court for sentencing. The learned Deputy, Mr. Adriel Loh, submitted that I should impose a sentence similar to that of the co-Accused. After taking into account the Pre-Sentence Report as well as the evidence of the Probation Officer, I decided to impose a sentence of imprisonment similar to that for the others on the Accused. However, in the exercise of my discretion, I ordered that the two sentences should run concurrently, making a total of only 30 months’ imprisonment. I further ordered that the sentence should take immediate effect.
7. On 27th September 2002, the Accused filed a Notice of Appeal against sentence through her solicitors.
8. In the course of sentencing the Accused persons, I had made certain brief comments, which are reproduced in the Notes of Evidence. I will refer to these comments as and when necessary.
THE FACTS
9. The facts are set out in the Amalgamated Statement of Facts [Exhibit A]. Essentially, the Accused was involved in a plan to commit extortion by way of using the Internet Relay Chat (IRC) facility on the Internet to lure unsuspecting men into a compromising position with a young girl. As part of this plan, one of the male members of the scam would pose as a girl (using a female name) and go to an IRC Chat-line to troll for prey. Once a suitable target (such as an engineer or the holder of a high profile job and who drives) is found, the Accused would be asked to call up the victim posing as "Linda" or "Gina".
10. Subsequently, the Accused would meet the victim and proceed to engage him in ‘sex talk’, heavy petting and then sexual activity in a secluded area. The Accused would ensure that as a result of their activities, the victim would ejaculate and leave tell-tale semen stains on her clothing. Thereafter, she would suggest going to a pre-arranged coffee-shop or hawker centre where her accomplices would suddenly appear. The accomplices would then proceed to act out a scene of family distress that their ‘run-away underaged sister’ had been sexually ravished by the victim. Eventually, the victim would be asked to cough up cash as a ‘dowry’ to marry the Accused, in order to avoid prosecution. By this time, the victim would have been made to sign a ‘confession’ after dark hints were dropped of the severe consequences of having sex with minors.
11. As a result of this elaborate scheme, two victims were separately extorted and induced to part with a sum of $1,000 (as part payment of a $20,000 ‘dowry’) and $30,000 on 26th and 29th April 2002 respectively.
MITIGATION
12. Counsel for the Accused submitted two pleas in mitigation (Exhibits D3 and D3A). En. Ahmad Nizam urged the Court to consider that although the Accused was central to the whole scheme, she was neither the mastermind nor was she the dominant figure. She was characterised as having merely taken instructions from the male members of the scheme and followed along. It was submitted that she did not benefit from the extortion.
13. It was further pointed out that although the Accused had dropped out from a course and run away from home in mid-April 2002, she has since returned home and reconciled with her family. Counsel stressed that at 17+, she is young. She is a first offender and she has now restarted her education, this time in the Institute of Technical Education.
14. She was said to be gullible and nave in going along with the scheme. In view of the acts she had committed, Counsel further urged the Court to consider that in a sense the Accused was a ‘victim’ of the group.
15. Although it was not pleaded, the Court also took note that she had pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and thus saved Prosecution and Court resources.
THE PRESCRIBED SENTENCE
16. An offence of extortion is punishable under section 384 with an imprisonment term of not less than 2 years and not more than 7 years and with caning. As a female, the Accused cannot be caned in view of section 231 of the CPC.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PROSECUTION
17. DPP Wong Kok Weng submitted that this is an elaborate scheme, using the Internet to trap unwitting men. He further pointed out that this is not a simple extortion case, but one that involves lot of planning by all the participants. He however had no objections to Counsel’s application that I call for a Pre-Sentence Report, which I did.
18. Subsequently, in objecting to probation, DPP Adriel Loh pointed out that the Accused’s involvement was not small. She was the one who engaged both victims in sexual activity, and that was the basis under which the entire plot was hatched.
SENTENCE OF THE COURT
Sentence Against the Co-Accused
19. I was of the view that this series of offences ought to attract a deterrent sentence. It was very elaborate in planning; and was played out with perfection and resounding success. As I pointed out in my oral comments, this is a typical ‘honey trap’ scheme, where a trap will be set wherein a nubile, young girl will be dangled as bait to lure desperate men into a spider’s web. In this case, the Accused was the bait that was used to lure the two victims into this web of depravity and deceit.
20. In sentencing the co-Accused persons, I noted the submissions of the various Defence Counsel that both victims brought this upon themselves to a certain extent since they trolled the Internet looking for girls. However, the fact remains that the entire group had planned this like a military operation. It is clear from PP v Tan Fook Sum [1999] 2 SLR 523 that where an offence is committed after ‘deliberation and premeditation’, that is an aggravating factor.
21. It is also clear that they are aware of the current climate where society and the Courts frown on the abuse of the Internet by sexual predators. In fact, some of the co-Accused took pains to remind the victims of the Courts’ severe stance against Internet sex predators. Clearly, they were making use of the threat of Court prosecution against the victims, e.g. by pointing out to the second victim that having sex with minors is punishable with a maximum of seven years’ imprisonment. This is not far from the truth. An offence of carnal connection with girls under the age of 16 is punishable with up to 5 years’ imprisonment and a fine not exceeding $10,000 [s 140(1)(i), Women’s Charter, Cap. 353); whereas statutory rape of minors under the age of 14 is punishable with between 8 to 20 years’ imprisonment and not less than 12 strokes of the cane. In fact, in the well-publicised case of Tay Kim Kuan v PP [2001] 3 SLR 567, the learned Chief Justice set down a benchmark sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment and a fine of $10,000 for an offence under s 140(1)(i), Women’s Charter where the Accused had made use of the Internet to gain the trust of young girls and thereafter to sexually exploit them. The Court further held that this sentence was on the lower spectrum.
22. I further took into account the fact that the Accused persons had taken the trouble to look for selected victims, who are well-to-do men with cars. They were clearly looking for victims who are able to meet their demands. Indeed, the potential gains for them were very large; two demands of $20,000 and $30,000 respectively from the two victims, out of which a total of $21,000 was paid before the scam was busted.
23. I also took into account the fact that sex was at the heart of this scam. By arranging for the Accused to sexually service the victims before the extortionate demands are made, the participants in these offences show a very cynical view of women. These sexual acts clearly denigrate the Accused as a girl. In that sense, I reluctantly agreed with...
To continue reading
Request your trial