PP v Ong Gim Hoo

• Judgment Date: 04 April 2014
• Date: 04 April 2014
• Docket Number: Criminal Revision No 3 of 2014
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Public Prosecutor

Plaintiff

and

Ong Gim Hoo

Defendant

[2014] SGHC 60

Choo Han Teck J

Criminal Revision No 3 of 2014

High Court

Criminal Law—Statutory offences—Customs Act—Enhanced punishment—Customs Act (Cap 70, 2004 Rev Ed)

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing—Revision of proceedings

The respondent in this criminal revision was charged with four charges (DAC 31609/2013 to DAC 31612/2013) for offences under the Customs Act (Cap 70, 2004 Rev Ed). Proceedings with respect to these four charges were underway before the State Courts at the time of this application.

The applicant brought this criminal revision to ‘amend two convictions’ recorded against the respondent in 2012. The term ‘amend convictions’ is used to refer to the process of setting aside a recorded conviction, framing an altered charge, and subsequently convicting the individual on the altered charge. In 2012, the respondent pleaded guilty to two charges of ‘ [o] ffences in relation to possession, storage, conveying and harbouring of goods’ under s 128 I of the CA. These were charges DAC 33656/2012 and DAC 33689/2012.

With respect to DAC 33656/2012 and DAC 33689/2012, the offence in each charge was framed as s 128 I (b). However, the respondent should have been charged under s 128 I (1) (b). The Customs Act that was in force at the time the offence was committed, 14 September 2012, labelled the offence as s 128 I (1) (b). The applicant sought to amend the 2012 convictions so that the respondent would be liable for the enhanced punishment prescribed in s 128 L (5) if convicted on any of the four recent charges which he faced.

Held, dismissing the application:

(1) While the errors made in the framing of the charges in DAC 33656/2012 and DAC 33689/2012 might have been ‘technical’ in nature, the process of ‘amending convictions’ in criminal revision was far from a merely technical exercise: at [5] .

(2) This was not a case where an application to amend the respondent's previous convictions should have been brought because a criminal revision in this case might have led to the complication of an otherwise simple matter. The 2012 convictions could have been set aside, and the respondent charged on reframed charges. However, should he then decide to offer a defence, a disproportionate amount of resources might have to be expended to resolve the matter: at [13] .

[Observation: The mistakes in the 2012 convictions, as pointed out by the applicant, should not render the 2012 convictions void and irrelevant for the purpose of enhanced sentencing. It was within the trial judge's powers in the concurrent proceedings, which the respondent faced, to determine whether the previous convictions should count for the purpose of enhanced sentencing: at [13] .]

Bhavashbhai s/o Baboobhai v PP [2014] 2 SLR 1281 (folld)

PP v Shaik Alaudeen s/o Hasan Bashar [2013] 2 SLR 538 (folld)

PP v Shaik Alaudeen s/o Hasan Bashar [2013] SGDC 159 (refd)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 256, 269

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) ss 390, 401 (consd) ;ss 390 (3) (a) , 390 (4) , 390 (6) , 390 (8) (a) , 390 (8) (b) , 390 (7) , 401 (2)

Customs Act (Cap 70, 2004 Rev Ed) ss 128 I, 128 I (1) (b) , 128 L (5) , 128 L (7)

Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) ss 33 A (1) (d) , 33 A (2)

Tan Yanying (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the applicant

Patrick Chin (Chin Patrick & Co) for the respondent.

Judgment reserved.

Choo Han Teck J

1 The respondent in this criminal revision was charged with four charges (DAC 31609/2013 to DAC 31612/2013) for offences under the Customs Act (Cap 70, 2004 Rev Ed) (‘CA’). Proceedings with respect to these four charges are currently underway before the State Courts. The respondent is currently on bail, and his matter is scheduled for a pre-trial conference on 28 March 2014.

2 The applicant brings this criminal revision, however, to ‘amend two convictions’ recorded against the respondent in 2012. For the purpose of this judgment, when I use the term ‘amend convictions’ I refer to the process of setting aside a recorded conviction, framing an altered charge, and subsequently convicting the individual on the altered charge. I will discuss the complexities inherent in such a process below at [4]. In 2012, the respondent pleaded guilty to two charges of ‘ [o] ffences in relation to possession, storage, conveying and harbouring of goods’ under s 128 I of the CA. These were charges DAC 33656/2012 and...