Public Prosecutor v Andy Sofiaan bin Rahmad

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 14 August 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] SGHC 167
• Docket Number: Criminal Revision No 8 of 2000
• Date: 14 August 2000
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 2000
• Plaintiff Counsel: Daniel Yong (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Citation: [2000] SGHC 167
• Defendant Counsel: Rashidah Saheer (Surian & Partners)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether new sentence, contrary to aim of reformative training,Reformative training,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing,Order for reformative training falls consecutive to previous term of reformative training,Whether new sentence should commence on date of conviction for new charges,Sch D para 4 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)

: Before district judge Kow Keng Siong on 16 February 2000, the respondent pleaded guilty to four charges, namely, one count of vandalism under s 3 of the Vandalism Act (Cap 341), committed when he cut his Electronic Monitoring Scheme (`EMS`) tag, and three counts of failing to report for urine testing contrary to reg 15 of the Misuse of Drugs (Approved Institutions and Treatment and Rehabilitation) Regulations 1976. The district judge sentenced him to reformative training and ordered that the sentence commence on the same date as the respondent`s prior term of reformative training. The Public Prosecutor brought a petition for revision for the sentence to commence on the date of conviction of the present charges, 16 February 2000. Before me, counsel for the respondent submitted that she was instructed not to oppose the petition. Nevertheless, I have set out these grounds to provide some clarification on the issues before the court.

Background

The case on revision concerned offences committed while the respondent was undergoing supervision following his release from the reformative training centre (`RTC`). The respondent was first sentenced to reformative training for offences relating to robbery and misuse of drugs on 10 March 1997. He served 31 months and 24 days of this sentence before being released from the reformative training centre into aftercare supervision on 3 November 1999. This supervision was to expire on 9 March 2001. Pursuant to para 13, Sch D of the CPC, two of the conditions of supervision were that the respondent agree to be subject to urine tests as directed by his aftercare officer and that the respondent abide by the EMS agreement.

The respondent failed to present himself for urine testing on 3, 5 and 7 January. On 9 January 2000, he cut off his EMS tag. In addition, he had breached other conditions of his release with regard to his employment, curfew hours at home and reporting to his aftercare officer. On 13 January 2000, the respondent was remanded at Queenstown Remand Prison on the present charges. An Order for Recall to the reformative training centre was subsequently issued on 25 January 2000. The respondent pleaded guilty to the present charges on 16 February 2000.

The petition for revision

I allowed a similar petition for revision on 6 April 2000 and this is reported at PP v Mohamed Noor bin Abdul Majeed [2000] 3 SLR 17 . In that case, I referred to the reformative training regime provided in Sch...