Public Prosecutor v AOG (A Minor)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: Juvenile Court (Singapore)
• Judge: Lim Keng Yeow
• Judgment Date: 29 December 2010
• Neutral Citation: [2010] SGJC 2
• Citation: [2010] SGJC 2
• Docket Number: JAC 1584/2009, 1585/2009, MA 437/2010/01
• Published date: 12 January 2011
• Plaintiff Counsel: ASP Lam Peng Choy
• Defendant Counsel: The Probationer in person.
• Hearing Date: 29 December 2010

District Judge Lim Keng Yeow: Background Facts

Over 9 months after AOG (“the probationer”) has been placed on 24 months’ probation, Breach action was taken by the Probation Officer. On 30 November 2010, after considering his Progress Report, probation was revoked and instead an order was made sending him to an Approved School (Singapore Boys’ Home) for 2 years under s 44(1)(i) of the Children and Young Persons Act (Cap 38, 2001 Rev Ed) (“CYPA”). The probationer’s father subsequently filed an appeal against that order. The probationer was 16 years and 1 month at the time the Approved School order was made.

The Charges and Probation Order

On 9 November 2009, the probationer pleaded guilty to the following 2 charges: JAC 1584/2009 You, AOG, M/15yrs, DOB: XXX 1994 are charged that you, on the 1st day of Nov 2009 at or about 10.00pm, along Petir Road, Singapore, together with B, M/15yrs and C, M/15yrs in furtherance of the common intention of you both, did attempt to commit robbery of the following items: One wallet containing cash of $150 One work permit and Once black handphone Nokia 3100 valued at $140 Totalling $290, in the possession of D, M/22yrs and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 393 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224. JAC 1585/2009 You, AOG, M/15yrs, DOB: XXX 1994 are charged that you, on the 1st day of Nov 2009 at or about 10.00pm, along Petir Road, Singapore, together with B, M/15yrs and C, M/15yrs in furthernamce of the common intention of you both, did attempt to commit robbery of the following items: One wallet containing cash of $100 One work permit and Once black LG handphone KG920 valued at $100 Totalling $200, in the possession of E, M/23yrs and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 393 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

On 24 Nov 2009, a Probation Report was presented. The court accepted the recommendations of the Probation Officer and the probationer was ordered to undergo detention for 1 month at the Singapore Boys’ Home followed by 24 months’ probation with certain conditions attached.

Court Warning for Poor Progress

On 28 July 2010, the probationer’s progress was reviewed during the Juvenile Probation Case Committee meeting. Of the 75 cases reviewed at that meeting, 3 were put up with a recommendation for a court warning. The probationer, then having undergone 6 months of probation, was among the 3.

The review report on the probationer noted that his progress for the initial 3 months was actually satisfactory. From the 4th month onwards, however, he “showed signs of inability to cope with the demands of probation” (paragraph 9.1). He breached his time restriction, leaving home at midnight only to return the next morning. While serving his community service order, he was caught smoking by the officer-in-charge of the project, something which, by itself, was an offence and could have resulted in Breach action. While he showed a little improvement in school, he still had the habit of arguing with teachers and being disrespectful to them.

In placing him on home probation, the court expected him to show responsibility at home given that his mother was a cancer patient and had been undergoing chemotherapy. Despite that, the probationer’s conduct at home actually deteriorated and he continued to show defiance toward her. Even after the Probation Officer warned him concerning that, a further check with the parents just before the court review showed that little progress had been made.

Standing before the court, the probationer expressed remorse for his misconduct and made assurances that he will take up responsibility for helping out at home. The court noted that, but found it necessary to administer a warning concerning his conduct under probation and recorded the same. He was sternly cautioned that if no improvements were shown over the coming months, Breach action would result and probation could be revoked.

Breach...