District Judge Lim Keng Yeow:
The Charges
On 6 Dec 2010, AOP (“the offender”) pleaded guilty to 5 charges: JAC 1398/2010 You, AOP, M/15yrs, DOB: XXX 1994 are charged that you, on 30 October 2010 at or about 10.45pm, at the 5th floor lift landing of Blk 323A, Sengkang East Way Drive, Singapore, together with Woo Yao Ming, Brian M/16yrs and in furtherance of the common intention of you both, did commit robbery of the following item: One black colour Apple i-phone 4 valued at $1,000 in the possession of one B, M/15yrs and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 392 read with section 34 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224. JAC 1440/2010 You, AOP, M/15yrs, DOB: XXX 1994 are charged that you, on or about the 22nd day of October 2010 at or about 6.35pm, at the bus stop near Blk 248 Compassvale Road, Singapore, together with Woo Yao Ming, Brian M/16yrs, C, M/14 yrs and “Ryan” (given verbally) and in furtherance of the common intention of you all, did commit theft of the following: One Blackberry Bold hand phone valued at $398 in the possession of one D, M/15yrs and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 379 read with section 34 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224. JAC 1441/2010 You, AOP, M/15yrs, DOB: XXX 1994 are charged that you, on or about the 3rd day of May 2010 at or about 11.00am, at the Timezone located at Hougang Mall, Singapore, together with C, M/14 yrs and “Ryan” (given verbally) and in furtherance of the common intention of you all, being entrusted with a hand phone belonging to E, M/14 yrs, did commit criminal breach of trust, to wit, by dishonestly misappropriating the said hand phone by using it to apply for game credits from GX.com worth $321 Singapore currency and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 406 read with section 34 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224. JAC 1442/2010 You, AOP, M/15yrs, DOB: XXX 1994 are charged that you, on or about the 30th day of April 2010 at or about 12.00pm, at the Timezone located at Compasspoint Shopping Centre, Singapore, together with C, M/14 yrs, F, M/15 yrs and “Ryan” (given verbally) and in furtherance of the common intention of you all, being entrusted with a NOKIA 5800 hand phone belonging to G, M/14 yrs, did commit criminal breach of trust, to wit, by dishonestly misappropriating the said hand phone by using it to apply for game credits from ST-AsiaSoft worth $100 Singapore currency and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 406 read with section 34 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224. JAC 1446/2010 You, AOP, M/15yrs, DOB: XXX 1994 are charged that you, on or about the 16th day of March 2010 at or about 9.30pm, at Anchorvale Community Centre, 59 Anchorvale Road, locker room, Singapore, together with C, M/14 yrs and in furtherance of the common intention of you all, did commit theft of the following items: Cash $60 (Singapore dollars); Apple I-phone valued at $1000; Game credits from ST Asia Soft valued at $300 (Singapore dollars) With a total value amounting up to S$1360, in the possession of one Salamat Geraldine Manlutac, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 379 read with section 34 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224. The offender admitted to 7 other charges and consented for them to be taken into consideration by the court.
The Orders Made
After considering the Probation Report (“PR”) and the presentation of the Probation Officer, an order was made sending the offender 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 offender was slightly over 16 years at the time the Approved School order was made.
The Offender’s Unsuitability for Probation
Critical factors considered in deciding whether the offender was suitable for probation included the following: • Offender’s receptiveness to guidance and supervision; • Level of family support and supervision; and • Other risk factors and risk of re-offending. All references hereafter to various paragraphs are references to the PR.
Offender’s receptiveness to guidance and supervision
In school (paragraph 4.4). There are clear indications of inability to respond to guidance and respect authority. The school reported that the offender was “blatantly defiant to all teachers” and persisted in such defiance even after he had been caned for his infringements. The school counsellor described the offender as being unreceptive to help and that he showed no remorse for his misbehaviours.
One particular incident is especially revealing of the offender’s response to authority. When confronted by the...
