Public Prosecutor v Koh Wen Jie Boaz

• Judge: Sundaresh Menon CJ
• Judgment Date: 26 October 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] SGHC 277
• Citation: [2015] SGHC 277
• Docket Number: Magistrate’s Appeal No 9094 of 2015
• Published date: 30 October 2015
• Hearing Date: 29 July 2015,16 July 2015
• Plaintiff Counsel: Francis Ng Yong Kiat, Tang Shangjun and Teo Lujia (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Date: 26 October 2015
• Defendant Counsel: Lim Junwei, Joel (Allen & Gledhill LLP) as young amicus curiae,Randhawa Ravinderpal Singh s/o Savinder Singh Randhawa and Ow Yong Wei En, James (Ouyang Wei'en) (Kalco Law LLC)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Criminal procedure and sentencing,Young offenders,Sentencing

Sundaresh Menon CJ: Introduction

This was an appeal brought by the Prosecution against a sentence of 30 months’ split probation imposed by a district judge on the respondent, Boaz Koh Wen Jie, a youthful offender. The sentence was imposed for offences that the respondent committed while he was already under probation on account of other offences he had previously committed. The Prosecution contended that a second sentence of probation was inappropriate and that the district judge should have ordered reformative training instead.

Two issues were central to the appeal. The first was whether a second sentence of probation was appropriate given that the respondent had reoffended while on probation. The second was the weight to be placed on the respondent’s apparent reform after the subject offences. It was urged upon me by counsel for the respondent, Mr James Ow Yong and Mr Ravinderpal Singh, that a second sentence of probation was warranted despite the respondent’s antecedents because of the promising signs of reform the offender had displayed subsequent to the commission of the subject offences and prior to sentencing by the district judge. The respondent had, amongst other things, checked himself into a residential programme at a Christian halfway house, and was reported to be making good progress. The present case also presented the opportunity for me to re-examine the sentencing approach that is appropriate for youthful offenders.

I heard the appeal on 16 July 2015 and reserved judgment to consider the matter further. On 29 July 2015, I allowed the Prosecution’s appeal and substituted the district judge’s order of probation with a sentence of reformative training. I gave a brief oral judgment at that time and as I indicated I would, I now give my detailed reasons.

The facts The offences and the circumstances in which they were committed

The factual narrative in this case should begin with the first set of offences which led to the respondent being put on probation in the first place. He committed, and pleaded guilty to, two offences of theft in dwelling under s 380 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the Penal Code”), with two other charges of theft in dwelling and a further charge of criminal trespass under s 441 of the Penal Code taken into consideration for sentencing. He was sentenced on 3 October 2013 to undergo 18 months’ probation, and was required to perform 150 hours of community service for these offences.

While the respondent was under probation, he committed further offences, which are the subject of consideration in this appeal. The Prosecution proceeded on five charges against the respondent: one charge of vandalism; one of theft; and three of criminal trespass. Six other charges were taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing. These included one other charge of vandalism, four of criminal trespass and one of mischief. For ease of reference, I set out the charges, which are arranged chronologically by the date of the offence, in the following table:

S/No	Charge	Date and time of the offence	Prescribed punishment	Proceeded / Taken into Consideration (“TIC”)
1	MAC-903222-2014 Criminal trespass with common intention under s 447 read with s 34 of the Penal Code	Sometime between April and June 2013 at or about 8 pm	Imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months, or with a fine which may extend to $1,500, or with both	TIC
2	MAC-902253-2014 Criminal trespass with common intention under s 447 read with s 34 of the Penal Code	Sometime between October and December 2013 at or about 10.30 pm	Imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months, or with a fine which may extend to $1,500, or with both	Proceeded
3	MAC-902251-2014 Criminal trespass with common intention under s 447 read with s 34 of the Penal Code	Sometime in February 2014 at or about 2 pm	Imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months, or with a fine which may extend to $1,500, or with both	TIC
4	MAC-902252-2014 Mischief under s 426 read with s 34 of the Penal Code	Sometime in February 2014 at or about 2.15 pm	Imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both	TIC
5	DAC-906990-2014 Vandalism under s 3 of the Vandalism Act (Cap 341, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the Vandalism Act”)	28 March 2014 between 3 pm and 4 pm	Fine not exceeding $2,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years, and caning with not less than 3 strokes and not more than 8 strokes	TIC
6	MAC-902250-2014 Criminal trespass with common intention under s 447 read with s 34 of the Penal Code	29 March 2014 at about 7.45 pm	Imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months, or with a fine which may extend to $1,500, or with both	Proceeded
7	MAC-902248-2014 Criminal trespass with common intention under s 447 read with s 34 of the Penal Code	Sometime between end April and the early May 2014 at or about 10 pm	Imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months, or with a fine which may extend to $1,500, or with both	TIC
8	MAC-902249-2014 Criminal trespass with common intention under s 447 read with s 34 of the Penal Code	Sometime between end April and early May 2014 at or about 10 pm	Imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months, or with a fine which may extend to $1,500, or with both	TIC
9	MAC-902246-2014 Theft with common intention under s 379 read with s 34 of the Penal Code	6 May 2014 at or about 11.45 pm	Imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both	Proceeded
10	MAC-902247-2014 Criminal trespass with common intention under s 447 read with s 34 of the Penal Code	6 May 2014 at or about 11.55 pm	Imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months, or with a fine which may extend to $1,500, or with both	Proceeded
11	DAC-906681-2014 Vandalism with common intention under s 3 of the Vandalism Act read with s 34 of the Penal Code	7 May 2014 at or about 12.30 am	Fine not exceeding $2,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years, and caning with not less than 3 strokes and not more than 8 strokes	Proceeded

The charge of vandalism (S/No 11 of the table) was the most serious of the charges that the Prosecution proceeded on. The vandalism in question consisted of vulgar words prominently spray-painted on the walls at the rooftop of a block of HDB flats, and occurred on 7 May 2014. The respondent had been spending time with a group of his secondary school friends, Reagan Tan Chang Zhi (“Reagan”), Chay Nam Shen (“Chay”), Goh Rong Liang (“Goh”) and David William Graaskov (“Graaskov”) in the vicinity of HDB Block 85A Lorong 4 Toa Payoh (“Block 85A”). The group decided to steal some spray paint cans which they chanced upon in the rear of an open-top lorry parked in the vicinity. This is the subject of the theft charge (S/No 9 of the table). The group then decided to commit the acts of vandalism by spraying paint on the walls at the rooftop of Block 85A. As it was almost midnight, Graaskov chose to leave at this stage to catch the last bus home. The remaining four, led by the respondent, gained access to the rooftop of Block 85A. This was a restricted area and they had to climb through a gap in the parapet at the 23rd storey. This is the subject of the criminal trespass charge (S/No 10 of the table). Once they were on the rooftop, the respondent scanned the opposite facing block of the flats and noticed some lights were still switched on. He and his companions waited about 10 minutes or so until they were turned off. They then embarked on the next stage of their plan.

The respondent stepped out onto the ledge and sprayed an expletive directed against a local political party on an outward-facing wall. Once he had done this, he walked back onto the rooftop and asked the others if they were planning to join in. The respondent then stepped onto the same ledge and sprayed over the same expletive as he felt that it was not “dark enough”. The respondent also sprayed the words “WAKE UP” and an image depicting a crossed-out circle with the initials of the same political party in the centre on the same outward facing wall. The others followed the respondent’s lead and they proceeded to vandalise both the inward and outward-facing walls on the rooftop with various other expletives and symbols. The group left Block 85A once they were done, and the respondent threw the spray cans down a rubbish chute.

The remaining two charges that the Prosecution proceeded with were for criminal trespass (S/Nos 2 and 6 of the table) that arose from two unrelated incidents. The first trespass occurred between October and December 2013, when the respondent, Reagan, Chay and Graaskov climbed over a gate into a worksite at Jalan Rajah. While in the worksite, they climbed onto a crane and stayed there for about two hours before leaving. The second occurred on the evening of 29 March 2014 when the respondent, Reagan, Chay, Goh and Graaskov entered a condominium at Marina Bay. There was a small gap in the entrance to the condominium, which Reagan, who was of slight build, was able to slip through. Reagan then unlocked the gate to the entrance and let the rest of the group in. They gained access to the condominium rooftop where they smoked and chatted for about an hour, before leaving.

The respondent was arrested on 9 May 2014. He was released on bail on 16 May 2014.

The respondent’s attempts at reform

The respondent had an apparent change of heart subsequent to his arrest and release. He first took up employment at his father’s company, Asialink W Pte Ltd, for six months between June and December 2014, working an average of three or four days a week. The respondent’s supervisor, Mr Anisur Rahman...