Public Prosecutor v Hirris anak Martin and another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chan Sek Keong CJ
• Judgment Date: 03 March 2010
• Neutral Citation: [2010] SGCA 8
• Plaintiff Counsel: Lee Sing Lit, Amarjit Singh and Sharon Lim (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 10 of 2009 (Criminal Case No 19 of 2009)
• Date: 03 March 2010
• Hearing Date: 15 January 2010
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
• Published date: 19 March 2010
• Citation: [2010] SGCA 8
• Defendant Counsel: The first and second respondents in person.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Year: 2010

Chan Sek Keong CJ (delivering the grounds of decision of the court):

Hirris Anak Martin (“the first respondent”) and James Anak Anggang (“the second respondent”) were jointly convicted on one charge of robbery with grievous hurt under s 394 read with s 397 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the Penal Code”) (“the common charge”). The second respondent was also convicted on a separate and unrelated charge of robbery with hurt under s 394 of the Penal Code (“the second charge”). We will refer to them collectively as “the respondents”.

The trial judge (“the Judge”) sentenced the respondents to ten years’ imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane on the common charge, and the second respondent to five years’ imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane on the second charge. He also ordered the imprisonment sentences imposed on the second respondent to run concurrently (see Public Prosecutor v Hirris Anak Martin and Another [2009] SGHC 132).

The prosecution appealed against the respondents’ sentences. After hearing the prosecution and the respondents in person, we allowed the appeal as follows: the respondents’ sentence on the common charge was increased to 15 years’ imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane; and the second respondent’s imprisonment sentences were to run consecutively. We now give the reasons for our decision.

Facts relating to the common charge

On 23 January 2008 at around 11 p.m., the respondents were drinking with a group of people at No 14 Jalan Suka, off Lorong 24 Geylang. When they ran out of liquor, one member of the group known as “Ah Choi” suggested to the respondents that the three of them could look for someone to rob, to which both respondents readily agreed. Before setting off, the trio picked up a metal rod which was hidden in a drain nearby and took turns to carry it as they went around looking for a victim.

The respondents and Ah Choi subsequently spotted a victim, one Abu Saleh Taser Uddin Ahmed (“the deceased”), who was sitting down in an open field next to a car park between Lorong 25 and Lorong 25A Geylang. The deceased was alone. Ah Choi suggested that the three of them beat up the deceased and rob him and the respondents agreed. At this stage, the metal rod was passed to Ah Choi. The three of them approached the deceased, who had lain down on the field by then. Ah Choi struck first, using the metal rod to hit the deceased on the back of his head twice. The deceased managed to get up, but the second respondent pushed him back down with his foot and proceeded to punch and kick him. The first respondent also rained several punches on the deceased’s face. As a result, the deceased became unconscious. Ah Choi then took a brown wallet containing $50.00, an EZ-Link card, a POSB ATM card and some personal papers from the deceased and the trio fled the scene. They went to the rear of a coffee shop along Lorong 24A Geylang where they divided the contents of the wallet among themselves. Ah Choi also used some of the money from the wallet to buy six cans of beer for them to share.

The deceased was found lying unconscious in the open field on 24 January 2008 at 6.18 a.m. and was brought to Tan Tock Seng Hospital. Despite undergoing intensive surgery and treatment, he eventually died from his injuries on 30 January 2008. The autopsy report stated that the cause of death was severe head injury consistent with the use of a blunt object to strike the deceased’s head.

The first and second respondents were subsequently arrested by the police on 4 February 2008. Ah Choi has not been found.

Facts relating to the second charge

Police investigations carried out after the arrest also revealed that the second respondent had been involved in an earlier case of robbery involving a separate victim. On 13 January 2008 at about 11.30 p.m., the victim, one Molfot Bepari Moslem Bepari, was walking along Geylang Road near City Plaza towards his dormitory at Joo Chiat Road. He was talking on his hand phone. As the victim was about to reach the bus stop in front of City Plaza, the second respondent approached him from behind and punched him on the right upper lip. When the victim turned around to see who had punched him, the second respondent kicked him to the ground and his hand phone fell out from his hand. The second respondent proceeded to punch and kick the victim several times in the head and face before fleeing with the hand phone, which he subsequently sold for $30.00.

Proceedings in the High Court

Both respondents pleaded guilty to the common charge and, as we have mentioned earlier, were sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane. The second respondent also pleaded guilty to the second charge and, as we have mentioned earlier, was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane, with both imprisonment sentences to run concurrently. The prosecution appealed on the following grounds: that the sentence in respect of the common charge was manifestly inadequate; and that the two imprisonment sentences against the second respondent should run consecutively.

Whether the sentence on the common charge was manifestly inadequate

Section 394 of the Penal Code prescribes a sentencing range of between five and 20 years’ imprisonment and a minimum of 12 strokes of the cane. Section 397 provides for an additional minimum of 12 strokes of the cane where, inter alia, grievous hurt is caused in the course of a robbery. Since both respondents would receive the maximum number of strokes (24) in any event, the only issue here was the adequacy of the imprisonment terms.

In this regard, we examined the following sentencing precedents under s 394 where death was caused in committing the robbery:

Case	Sentence	Brief Facts
Public Prosecutor v Abdul Naser bin Amer Hamsah [1996] 3 SLR(R) 268	18 years’ imprisonment and 18 strokes of the cane	The accused robbed a tourist in her hotel room and stamped on her face in the course of the robbery, which caused her death.
Roslan bin Abdul Rahman v Public Prosecutor [1999] 1 SLR(R) 377 (“Roslan”)	12 years’ imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane	The accused accidentally caused the victim’s death when he stuffed a towel in her mouth to prevent her from shouting. He was convicted for causing the victim to suffer fractures during an earlier struggle in the course of the robbery.
Public Prosecutor v Somrak Senkham and another [2004] SGHC 172 (“Somrak Senkham”)	Five years’ imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane (for both accused)	The two accused had robbed the victim with an accomplice. During the robbery, the accomplice struck the victim’s head with a long pole which led to his death.
Public Prosecutor v Lim Poh Lye and another [2005] 2 SLR(R)

...