PP v Quek Li Hao

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 13 August 2013
• Date: 13 August 2013
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 57 of 2013
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Public Prosecutor

Plaintiff

and

Quek Li Hao

Defendant

[2013] SGHC 152

Tay Yong Kwang J

Magistrate's Appeal No 57 of 2013

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing—Appeal—Sentencing—Respondent sentenced to aggregate sentence of 14 months' imprisonment, 12 strokes of cane and $30,000 fine for, inter alia, four charges of harassment with property damage—Whether aggregate sentence was manifestly inadequate—Sections 28 (2) (a) and 28 (3) (b) (i) Moneylenders Act (Cap 188, 2010 Rev Ed)

The respondent was unable to repay his debts owed to two unlicensed moneylenders. The respondent therefore took up jobs with the moneylenders to set off his debts. One moneylender offered him a job as a ‘runner’, which entailed splashing paint on debtors' flats and scrawling graffiti on stairwell walls. The respondent had also harassed one particular debtor's neighbour by splashing paint on the neighbour's unit.

The respondent was caught red-handed by the police. He pleaded guilty to, inter alia,four charges of harassment with property damage, which were offences under s 28 (2) (a) (read with s 28 (3) (b) (i)) of the Moneylenders Act (Cap 188, 2010 Rev Ed). The District Judge sentenced the respondent to an aggregate sentence of 14 months' imprisonment, 12 strokes of the cane and a $30,000 fine. The Prosecution appealed on the basis that the sentence was manifestly inadequate.

Held, allowing the appeal and sentencing the respondent to 24 months' imprisonment, 12 strokes of the cane and a $30,000 fine:

(1) Parliament's approach towards loan shark offences was clear - it had prescribed mandatory imprisonment and caning for even first-time offenders. In light of the severity of the mandatory sentences, Parliament's intention was clearly to strongly deter the commission of loan shark offences: at [22] .

(2) Non-fire harassment cases with property damage could be divided into two categories: the first category consisted of those who turned to loan sharks not to pay off their gambling debts but because of genuinely desperate needs such as sudden sickness and prolonged retrenchment. The second category consisted of those less deserving of sympathy such as youth harassers lured by the easy money and the thrill and gamblers who harassed for the easy money they could obtain to repay their gambling debts. The benchmark sentence for the first category was 12 months' imprisonment and three strokes of the cane: at [24] and [25] .

(3) There were no peculiar facts justifying a departure from the benchmark sentence: at [32] , [33] , [35] and [36] .

(4) A small discount of one to two months to the benchmark sentence could be given for non-harassment cases where the accused had taken steps to minimise damage caused to property: at [37] .

(5) It was an aggravating factor when innocent persons were deliberately targeted and harassed, for instance, by harassing the debtor's neighbours or vandalising premises when the harasser knew that the debtor no longer resided there. Offenders who knowingly harassed innocent persons ought to be given an imprisonment term of two to three months higher than the benchmark sentence: at [39] and [44] .

Ong Chee Eng v PP [2012] 3 SLR 776 (folld)

PP v Abdullah bin Abdul Rahman [2011] SGDC 380 (distd)

PP v Kalaiselvan Subramaniam DAC 30535/2012 (distd)

PP v Mohammad Suhairi bin Mail [2011] SGDC 31 (folld)

PP v Nelson Jeyaraj s/o Chandran [2011] 2 SLR 1130 (folld)

PP v Tan Chiah Khing [2012] SGDC 35 (distd)

Moneylenders Act (Cap 188, 2010 Rev Ed) ss 14 (1) (b) (i) , 14 (1 A) (a) , 28 (2) (a) , 28 (3) (b) (i)

Kenneth Wong and Vadivalagan Shanmuga (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the appellant

Respondent in person.

Tay Yong Kwang J

1 This was an appeal by the Prosecution against the sentences meted out to the accused (‘the Respondent’) by the district judge (‘DJ’) in respect of four charges of harassment with property damage. The Respondent committed the offences on behalf of an unlicensed moneylender, such offences being punishable under s 28 (2) (a) read with s 28 (3) (b) (i) of the Moneylenders Act (Cap 188, 2010 Rev Ed) (‘Harassment Charges’).

2 At the conclusion of the appeal, I allowed the Prosecution's appeal. I now set out my reasons.

The background

3 The Respondent, now 38 years old, stood as a guarantor for his friend, ‘Eric’, to borrow money from three unlicensed moneylenders. A few weeks later, ‘Eric’ disappeared and the unlicensed moneylenders harassed the Respondent for repayment. As the Respondent was left to bear ‘Eric's’ debts, he started to take loans ranging from $500 to $1000 from other unlicensed moneylenders in order to pay off the existing debts.

4 Sometime in early 2012, the Respondent took a $500 loan from an unlicensed moneylender known as ‘Paul’ as he needed cash urgently. Thereafter, whenever the Respondent needed cash urgently, he contacted ‘Paul’ and obtained new loans from him. Sometime in mid July 2012, the Respondent was unable to repay ‘Paul’. ‘Paul’ offered the Respondent the job of a ‘runner’, which included splashing paint at borrowers' flats and scrawling ‘O$P$’ at staircase walls. The Respondent was promised $70 for each unit which was harassed, with such payments to be used to set off the Respondent's outstanding debts with ‘Paul’. The Respondent agreed and started working for ‘Paul’ sometime in late July 2012.

5 The Respondent also borrowed from an unlicensed moneylender named ‘James’. In May 2012, he was unable to repay the loan. ‘James’ told the Respondent that his flat would be harassed unless he opened a bank account for the use of his unlicensed moneylending business. The Respondent agreed to open a bank account and did so on 5 May 2012. He passed the automated teller machine (ATM) card and personal identification number (PIN) linked to the account to ‘James’. This formed the subject matter of the charge of assisting ‘James’ in the carrying on of the business of moneylending punishable under s 14 (1) (b) (i) read with s 14 (1 A) (a) of the Moneylenders Act (‘Assisting Moneylender Charge’) (DAC 32997/2012).

6 On 21 August 2012 at about 2.17 am, one Zakaria bin Osman called the police stating that ‘ [t] here is a Chinese man wearing grey T-shirt and black bermudas with spectacle just open his bag and write something on the wall’, giving the location as Block 17 Hougang Ave 3. The police arrived and managed to arrest the Respondent at the void deck of the said block of flats after a short chase.

7 The Respondent was found with the following items:

(a) one bag;

(b) five plastic bags;

(c) one glove;

(d) one screwdriver;

(e) two paint brushes;

(f) four cans of green paint;

(g) six marker pens;

(h) one pen;

(i) one bottle of WD40 - stain remover;

(j) one Nokia handphone;

(k) one piece of paper with entries;

(l) one receipt; and

(m) one can of used paint in a yellow plastic bag.

8 The Respondent consented to seven other charges of harassment on behalf of an unlicensed moneylender (by splashing paint and writing loan shark related graffiti) to be taken into consideration for sentencing purposes.

The charges

9 The Respondent pleaded guilty before the DJ to the following charges:

DAC 30189/2012:

[Quek Li Hao] are charged that you, on the 21^st day of August 2012, at or...