PP v Yeo Ek Boon Jeffrey

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Sundaresh Menon CJ,Tay Yong Kwang JA,See Kee Oon J
• Judgment Date: 29 November 2017
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 9112 of 2017/01 and Criminal Motion No 45 of 2017
• Date: 29 November 2017

Public Prosecutor

and

Yeo Ek Boon Jeffrey and another matter

[2017] SGHC 306

Sundaresh Menon CJ, Tay Yong Kwang JA and See Kee Oon J

Magistrate's Appeal No 9112 of 2017/01 and Criminal Motion No 45 of 2017

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Benchmark sentences — Offender convicted of voluntarily causing hurt to public servant — Victim was police officer — Whether sentence manifestly inadequate — Sentencing offenders who cause hurt to police officers — Whether prospective overruling applied — Section 332 Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)

Held, allowing the application to introduce further evidence by consent, allowing the appeal and increasing the sentence to ten weeks' imprisonment:

Whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate

(1) Despite the absence of benchmark sentences, a sentencing trend had evolved for offences under s 332 of the Penal Code. For any assault against a police or law enforcement officer, a custodial sentence was the norm and the usual sentence was around two to nine months' imprisonment: at [43] and [42].

(2) In the present case, after giving due weight to the mitigating circumstances, the sentence of one week's imprisonment imposed by the district judge fell far below the normal sentencing range: at [45].

Sentencing offenders who cause hurt to police officers under s 332 of the Penal Code

(3) It was appropriate to have a sentencing framework which reflected society's opprobrium of offences against police officers under s 332 of the Penal Code. Police officers were often the target in these cases, and they had to be assured of adequate protection and vindication by the law against behaviour that might compromise the effective discharge of their duties: at [50].

(4) Although the Prosecution submitted that the sentencing framework should be applied to police officers and other law enforcement officers, including SPF officers and other Home Team officers, it would be more appropriate to confine its application to police officers and public servants who were performing duties akin to police duties at the material time. The reasons were that: (a) these public servants formed the most visible category of law enforcement officers in daily life and were the most likely group to be involved in s 332 offences because of the nature of their work; (b) a more generic class covering police officers and other law enforcement officers might raise problems of definition, because it might be difficult conceptually to determine who a law enforcement officer was; and (c) if the sentencing framework covered all Home Team officers, which would include paramedics and fire-fighters from the Singapore Civil Defence Force, this would result in the sentencing framework overreaching to other public servants when the impetus for the framework in the first place was to address the unique position of police officers: at [52].

(5) The applicable sentencing framework comprised three broad sentencing bands, within which the severity of an offence, and hence the sentence to be imposed, could be determined on the basis of the twin considerations of harm and culpability. In the context of an offence under s 332 of the Penal Code, the degree of harm caused would refer to the nature and gravity of the hurt caused to the particular police officer and the consequences to the police in general. The degree of culpability was measured chiefly in relation to the manner and the motivation of the offender's involvement in the criminal act. The sentencing bands were premised on offenders pleading guilty and not having relevant criminal antecedents: at [57], [58] and [61].

(6) The first sentencing band (“Category 1”) applied in cases of lesser harm and lower culpability, and attracted fines or sentences of up to one year's imprisonment. Category 1 encompassed the existing sentencing norm, under which a custodial sentence of two to nine months' imprisonment, which would remain the indicative starting point for most of the offences prosecuted under s 332 of the Penal Code, would generally be imposed for cases of causing hurt to police officers. Fines should be meted out only in very exceptional cases, where the offending act ranked the lowest in the harm-and-culpability spectrum. This sentencing option should generally be available only to young offenders or offenders with some mental disorder: at [59], [63] and [67].

(7) The second sentencing band (“Category 2”) comprised offences of a higher level of seriousness, and attracted sentences of one to three years' imprisonment. These were usually cases where (a) minor injuries were caused but the offender's culpability was high or (b) serious injuries were caused but the offender's culpability was low. Where there were three or more aggravating factors that indicated enhanced culpability or more serious injuries, the offence would generally fall into Category 2: at [59] and [68].

(8) The third sentencing band (“Category 3”) covered the most serious of offences under s 332 of the Penal Code, where there was a high degree of both harm and culpability, and would usually feature a large number of aggravating factors. These would attract sentences of three to seven years' imprisonment: at [72], [73] and [59].

(9) Caning was appropriate as a general rule where an offender exhibited inordinate violence, used weapons or where he attempted to snatch or to use the police officer's firearms in the course of causing hurt to the police officer. Caning would be generally justified where the offence fell within Category 3, and in some cases, within Category 2: at [74].

(10) In examining the twin considerations of harm and culpability, this case fell in the lower end of Category 1 on both these factors. The harm which the police officer sustained was slight, and the circumstances of the offence were such that there would be no prospect of a possible erosion of public respect for police authority. Besides the fact that the respondent was drunk, vulgar and a nuisance, there were no other factors that increased his culpability. While a sentence of one week's imprisonment was manifestly inadequate, ten weeks' imprisonment was appropriate and sufficient punishment: at [76].

Prospective overruling

(11) There was no need for prospective overruling. The objective of the sentencing framework was to clarify and rationalise the existing state of the law, utilising the full sentencing range prescribed by Parliament, and not to alter established sentencing policy: at [75].

[Observation: Although knowledge that the victim was a public servant was not stated explicitly in s 332 of the Penal Code, it could not be right that someone who hit another person without even knowing that that person was a public servant going about his duties would be guilty of an offence under the provision. The knowledge required was objective and not subjective knowledge. Therefore, if an ordinary person would have such knowledge in the circumstances of the case, it was not open to the accused person to claim that he did not know: at [35].

Although the Prosecution had filed the application to introduce further evidence as a matter of prudence, it was not necessary to have made a formal application in order to admit the facts in the affidavit. Most of those facts were common knowledge and could have been dealt with by way of submissions. The remaining aspects consisted of facts and figures derived from sources such as newspaper publications or research and policy institutes. These were similarly uncontroversial and it was highly unlikely that they would be seriously disputed: at [39].]

Case(s) referred to

PP v Alfian bin Abdullah [2015] SGDC 111 (refd)

PP v Alfian bin Abdullah Magistrate's Appeal No 9053 of 2015/01, HC (refd)

PP v Dernny bin Zainalabiden [2010] SGDC 180 (refd)

PP v Ho Eng Huat [2016] SGDC 105 (refd)

PP v Koh Keng Hong [2015] SGDC 341 (refd)

PP v Koh Thiam Huat [2017] 4 SLR 1099 (refd)

PP v Ramizah Banu bte Abdul Rahman [2013] SGDC 327 (refd)

PP v Soon Nyet Chin [2014] SGDC 269 (refd)

PP v Zhu Guo Feng Magistrate's Appeal No 177 of 2008 (refd)

R v Dalius Ziemelies [2015] EWCA Crim 1220 (refd)

R v Ramazan Gungor [2015] EWCA Crim 877 (refd)

Wong Hoi Len v PP [2009] 1 SLR(R) 115; [2009] 1 SLR 115 (refd)

Facts

The respondent pleaded guilty before the district judge to one charge of voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant under s 332 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed). The victim, Sergeant Ong (“SGT Ong”), was a police officer with the Singapore Police Force (“SPF”).

Prior to the offence, SGT Ong was informed about a male Chinese who had behaved aggressively at a club. The said male Chinese had headed towards Bukit Timah Road near the canal thereafter. Subsequently, at about 3.41am that same day, SGT Ong and his partner, SGT Suhaimi, located the respondent near the canal, lying on a grass patch and covered in some mud and leaves. They managed to wake the respondent up, upon which the respondent started to behave aggressively towards them and told them not to touch him. The respondent pointed his finger at the police officers and directed vulgarities at them. After SGT Ong told the respondent to mind his language, the respondent uttered a vulgar word and slapped SGT Ong once on his left cheek. The medical report stated that SGT Ong sustained tenderness over his left cheek.

The respondent was sentenced to one week's imprisonment by the district judge. In its appeal against the sentence imposed, the Prosecution's submissions were threefold. First, the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. Second, a new sentencing framework should be considered for offences under s 332 of the Penal Code. In particular, the existing sentences imposed for offences against police and other law enforcement officers, as a specific class of victims, were inadequate to meet the aims of general deterrence. To that end, the Prosecution applied to introduce further evidence by way of...