Public Prosecutor v Anson Tan Chin Siang
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Christopher Goh Eng Chiang |
| Judgment Date | 12 December 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] SGDC 298 |
| Court | District Court (Singapore) |
| Docket Number | District Arrest Case No. 902066 of 2022 & 20 Others, Magistrate’s Appeal No. 9225-2023-01 |
| Hearing Date | 04 November 2023,19 October 2023 |
| Citation | [2023] SGDC 298 |
| Year | 2023 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Susanna Abigail Yim (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
| Defendant Counsel | Fong Mun Yong Gregory John (Fong & Fong LLC) |
| Subject Matter | Criminal Law,Offences,Hurt,Property,Cheating,Mischief,Rash act causing hurt,Statutory Offences,Misuse of Drugs Act,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing,Revenue Law,Customs and Excise,Uncustomed goods,Road Traffic,Inconsiderate driving,Driving under disqualification,Taking vehicle without owner's consent |
| Published date | 03 January 2024 |
The accused, Anson Tan Chin Siang (“the Accused”), a male Singapore National, faced a total of 21 charges. These included offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 (“MDA”), the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, Rev Ed 2004) (“RTA”), the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, Rev Ed 2000) (“MVA”), the Customs Act (Cap 70) (“CA”) and the Penal Code 1871 (“PC”). He pleaded guilty to 10 charges with the remaining 11 charges taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing (“TIC”).
The 10 charges to which the Accused pleaded guilty to are summarised as follows:
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
The Accused was sentenced to a total three years' and 22 months' and 14 weeks' imprisonment with effect from 09 February 2022 with an enhanced sentence of 260 days' imprisonment under s 50T(1)(a) of the PA and disqualified from holding or obtaining all classes of driving licences (“DQAC”) for a period of five years with effect from date of release.
Being dissatisfied with the sentences I have imposed; the Accused has now appealed against sentence.
Summary of the factsThe Accused admitted to two sets of Statement of Facts (“SOF”) without qualification. The following is a summary of the facts which are set out chronologically.
BackgroundOn 21 March 2019, the Accused, having earlier been convicted on 25 February 2019 for various offences, was sentenced to a global sentence of three years' and sixteen months' imprisonment with effect from 23 November 2017, six strokes of the cane and a fine of $3,000, in default three weeks' imprisonment and 30 months DQAC with effect from release.
He was released from prison on 27 October 2020. Therefore, his disqualification period commenced on 27 October 2020 and would end on 26 April 2023. Additionally, from 27 October 2020 to 6 April 2022, the Accused was subject to a remission order made by the Commissioner of Prisons under Division 2 of Part VB of the PA.
Facts relating C2, the inconsiderate driving chargeSometime around 12 February 2021, at or about 0230 hours, the owner of motorcar SMQ9104G asked the Accused to retrieve his cigarettes in his motorcar parked at the Block 407 Bukit Batok West Avenue 4 open-space carpark. At the carpark, the Accused started the engine of the said motorcar, and this caused the motorcar to move forward, out of the parking lot. This resulted in a collision with motor taxi SHC1838H. Scratches and dents were caused to the front portion of both vehicles. The accused’s then-girlfriend, who was with him, suffered pain to her right arm as a result of the collision but did not seek medical attention. These facts formed the basis of the inconsiderate driving charge under s 65(b) of the RTA.
On 25 February 2019, the Accused had been convicted and subsequently sentenced for an offence of inconsiderate driving under s 65(b) of the RTA, which conviction and sentence has not been set aside. He was thus liable to enhanced punishment under s 65(5)(b) of the RTA. In addition to this, he was also liable to for enhanced punishment under s 50T(1)(a) of the PA for a term not exceeding 419 days from 12 February 2021 to 6 April 2022 for the said offence.
Facts relating to C3 & C5, the driving under DQ and the dealing with uncustomed goods charges respectivelyOn 30 November 2021, sometime before 2127 hours, the Accused took the keys to his father’s motorcar SLZ4862Z, without his father’s consent. He then proceeded to drive the said motorcar to the 42 Defu Lane 7 carpark. He was driving the said motorcar in order to engage in criminal activity involving duty unpaid cigarettes. As such, the Accused was driving under DQ, an offence punishable under s 43(4) of the RTA.
At the 42 Defu Lane 7 carpark, customs officers were conducting an operation concerning duty unpaid cigarettes. The Accused was seen driving SLZ4862Z in the carpark and parking beside another vehicle involved in cigarette smuggling. The Accused was then seen exiting the carpark in SLZ4682Z. When custom officers moved in, they arrested three people at the scene and seized 249 cartons x 200 sticks of duty unpaid cigarettes. The excise duty leviable on the seized cigarettes weighing a total of 44.397 kilogrammes was $21,264.60.
Investigations revealed that the Accused had instructed one Sathiswaran to rent one of the vehicles involved in the smuggling operation. Subsequently, when the Accused was called down for an interview, he admitted that sometime on 29 November 2021, an unknown Singaporean had instructed him to find helpers to collect and unpack the duty unpaid cigarettes the following day. He was promised $1,000 for the job. The Accused thereafter engaged two of the three arrested persons at the scene and instructed them as to what to do. These facts formed the basis of the charge of dealing with uncustomed goods under s 128I(1)(b) of the CA.
In addition to any punishment prescribed by law under s 43(4) of the RTA for driving under DQ, and s 128L(4) of the CA for dealing with uncustomed goods, the Accused was also liable for enhanced punishment under s 50T(1)(a) of the PA for a term not exceeding 128 days from 30 November 2021 to 6 April 2022 for the said offences.
Facts relating to C1, the cheating chargeOn 8 February 2022, at about 1315 hours, the Accused met one Cheng Yit Leong (“Cheng”), ostensibly to purchase Cheng’s Rolex watch for about $35,000. During the meeting, Cheng passed the Rolex watch to the Accused who, unbeknownst to Cheng, then swapped it for another Rolex watch which was not in working order. As they were walking to a pawnshop for a verification of the Rolex watch, the Accused abruptly told Cheng he had changed his mind about the verification and that he would meet Cheng later that night. Later, Cheng checked the watch and realised that the Rolex watch in his possession was not the same watch. The Accused subsequently pawned Cheng’s Rolex watch for $18,000. These facts formed the basis of the cheating charge under s 420 of the PC.
In addition to any punishment prescribed by law under s 420 of the PC, the Accused was also liable for enhanced punishment under s 50T(1)(a) of the PA for a term not exceeding 58 days from 8 February 2022 to 6 April 2022 for the offence.
Facts relating to C4, C6 & C7, the taking of a vehicle without owner’s consent, the enhanced drug consumption and the rash act endangering life charges respectivelyOn 9 February 2022, during Chinese New Year, the Accused took the keys to his father’s motor car, SLZ4862Z without his father’s consent. This formed the basis of the taking a vehicle without owner’s consent charge under s 96(1) of the RTA.
At about 1454 hours on the same day, at the open carpark next to Block 813B Yishun Ring Road, the Accused was seen by police officers in a marked police car boarding SLZ4862Z. The police officers tried to prevent the Accused from driving off. The Accused started the engine and inched forward. He bushed against the knee area of a police officer, one Daniel Ganaraj s/o Peter John (“Daniel”), pushing his right ankle and knee backwards. Police officer Daniel placed both his hands on the bonnet of SLZ4862Z to prevent the Accused. However, the Accused managed to speed off. The police officers gave chase but lost sight of the Accused in the traffic.
Police officer Daniel subsequently went to Sengkang General Hospital as he felt slight discomfort in his knee. He was given five days of medical leave. These facts formed the basis of the charge under s 337(a) of the PC for a rash act endangering life.
Later that night, at about 2205 hours, the Accused was apprehended by Police. Following his arrest, the Accused provided two bottles of his urine sample which were sealed in his presence. These samples were sent to the Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”) for analysis the following day. Upon analysis, the Accused’s urine sample was found to contain methamphetamine. Methamphetamine is a Specific Drug listed in the Fourth Schedule to the MDA. The Accused was not authorised under the MDA or the Regulations thereunder to consume the said drug and had therefore committed an offence under s8(b)(ii) of the MDA.
Further, the Accused had, on 28 January 2019, been convicted of an offence under s 8(b)(ii) of the MDA for consuming a specified drug, namely methamphetamine, and had been sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment, which conviction and sentence has not been set aside. The Accused was therefore liable for enhanced punishment under s 33(4) of the MDA.
In addition to any punishment prescribed under s 96(1) of the RTA for taking a vehicle without owner’s consent, under s 337(a) for rash driving and under s 33(4) of the MDA for enhanced...
To continue reading
Request your trial