Public Prosecutor v Ashwin Kumar s\o Suresh Kumar

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Teoh Ai Lin
• Judgment Date: 14 May 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] SGDC 92
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Arrest Case No. 919555-2020, Magistrate Arrest Case No. 907820 of 2020 & Ors, (Magistrate’s Appeal No 9089/2021/01)
• Published date: 22 May 2021
• Year: 2021
• Hearing Date: 11 January 2021,10 November 2020,08 April 2021,13 April 2021
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ronald Ang (Attorney General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Jaesh Balachandran (Bishop Law Corporation)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Offences,Criminal Intimidation,Hurt,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing
• Citation: [2021] SGDC 92

District Judge Teoh Ai Lin:

On 4 May 2019, some four months after the accused Ashwin Kumar completed his probation and just three weeks shy of his 21st birthday, he threatened a victim with a 18cm carabiner knife and then caused hurt to a second victim in the same incident. Later on in the same month of May whilst out on bail, the accused participated in a group assault and caused hurt to a third victim. Was the accused to be treated as a youthful offender of “mostly offences committed by young boys in anger and foolishness” as his counsel said, or should deterrence be the primary sentencing consideration as prosecution submitted?

The accused pleaded guilty to one charge of criminal intimidation and two charges of causing hurt, with two other charges of possession of offensive weapons and causing hurt taken into consideration. I sentenced the accused to a total of 6 weeks imprisonment and fine of $1500, and the accused appealed my sentence.

The Charges

The criminal intimidation charge involving the carabiner knife was reduced from one of threatening death to one of threatening hurt. The accused pleaded guilty to three charges as follows:

DAC-919555-2020 (1st charge)

You, […] are charged that you, on the 4th day of May 2019, at about 9.30pm, at the void deck of Block 478 Pasir Ris Drive 4, Singapore, did commit criminal intimidation by carrying one carabiner knife, measuring 18 cm in length, and threatening one Sabnani Akshay Arvin with hurt, to wit, by pointing it at the said Sabnani Akshay Arvin and asking who was staring at him, with intent to cause alarm to the said Sabnani Akshay Arvin, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 506 (1st limb) of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 (2008 Rev Ed).

MAC-907820-2020 (3rd charge)

You, […] are charged that you, on the 4th day of May 2019, at about 9.30pm, at the void deck of Block 478 Pasir Ris Drive 4, Singapore, did voluntarily cause hurt to one Zarif Al Karim, to wit, by slapping the right side of the saidZarif Al Karim’s face, intending thereby to cause hurt to the said Zarif Al Karim, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 323 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 (2008 Rev Ed).

MAC-907821-2020 (4th charge)

You, […] are charged that you, on 31st day of May 2019, at or about 05.12 p.m., at road intersection of Perak Road and Dickson Road together with Navindran S/O Kumaran, and Arvindran S/O Renganathan, in furtherance of a common intention of you three, did voluntarily cause hurt to the victim, Shevam Kumar Rai, male, 20 years old, to wit, by punching and kicking the victim several times, intending thereby to cause hurt to the said Shevam Kumar Rai, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 323 read with section 34 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 (2008 Revised Edition).

Each of the proceeded offences was punishable with an imprisonment term of up to 2 years, or with fine.

Material Facts

The accused was a full-time national serviceman at the time of the offences. The offences in the 1st and 3rd charges against the first two victims were committed in the same incident. The offence in the 4th charge was committed in a subsequent incident against a third victim.

The material facts extracted from the Statement of Facts admitted without qualification by the accused are set out below.

Facts relating to the 1st charge

The informant who was also the victim in the 1st charge was Sabnani Akshay Arvin, male Indian, aged 25 years old, Singapore Citizen and a student. On 4 May 2019 at about 9.30pm, the informant and his friends were chatting at the void deck of Block 478 Pasir Ris Drive 4, Singapore. Shortly after, they heard a commotion between the accused and his friends at the adjacent block, about 10 metres away. The informant then called the police while his friends kept their eyes on the accused and his friends.

The accused noticed that the informant and his friends were looking in his direction. He approached the informant and his friends in an aggressive manner and confronted them for staring at him. During the confrontation, the accused took out a carabiner knife, measuring 18cm in length and pointed it at the informant, asking who had stared at him. The accused also challenged the informant and his friends to a fight. The informant was alarmed by the accused’s action. He raised both his palms and told the accused that no one was staring at him. The accused then walked away and threw his carabiner knife in the dustbin. A photo of the carabiner knife was set out in the statement of facts.

By virtue of the foregoing, the accused committed the offence of criminal intimidation punishable under Section 506 (1st limb) of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

Facts relating to 3rd charge

The victim in the 3rd charge was Zarif AI Karim, male Bangladeshi, aged 19 years old, and a student. In the same incident, the victim had started staring at the accused and his friends who were behaving rowdily at the adjacent block as he was curious about what they were doing. The accused had confronted the victim and his friends, and challenged the victim and his friends to a fight as referred to in the 1st charge. The accused then slapped the right side of the victim’s face once with the intention to cause hurt to the victim. The victim felt pain on his face. This occurred prior to the accused throwing away the carabiner knife as referred to in the 1st charge.

By virtue of the foregoing, the accused committed the offence of voluntarily causing hurt punishable under Section 323 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

Facts relating to the 4th charge

The complainant who was also the victim in the 4th charge was Shevam Kumar Rai S/O R K Rai, male Indian, aged 20 years old, Singapore Citizen, and a student.

The first and second witnesses were the friends of the accused. The first witness was Arvindran S/O Renganathan, male, aged 20 years old, Indian, Singapore Citizen and a student. The second witness was Navindran S/O Kumaran, male, aged 20 years old, Indian, Singapore Citizen, and also a student.

The third witness Praveen s/o Manimaran, male, aged 18 years old was the complainant’s friend.

On 31 May 2019 at about 5.30pm, the accused, the first witness and the second witness had a dispute with the third witness, the complainant’s friend, at the road intersection of Perak Road and Dickson Road. The complainant intervened in an attempt to stop the dispute. As a result, the accused, the first witness and the second witness, in furtherance of a common intention of the three of them, punched and kicked the complainant several times, with the intention of causing hurt to the complainant. This caused pain to the complainant.

By virtue of the foregoing, the accused committed an offence of voluntarily causing hurt with common intention punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

Charges taken into consideration

The accused admitted and consented to two further charges to be taken into consideration in sentencing. The first TIC charge ( the 2nd charge) was for unlawful possession of the carabiner knife used in the criminal intimidation charge on 4 May 2019, and the second TIC charge ( the 5th charge ) was for causing hurt with the co-accused persons by punching and kicking the third witness in the 31st May 2019 incident.

Prosecution’s submissions for 8 weeks’ imprisonment and fine

Prosecution submitted for a global sentence of eight weeks’ imprisonment comprising four weeks’ jail for the criminal intimidation charge, fine for the slapping incident in the 3rd charge, and four weeks’ imprisonment for the group assault in the 4th charge.

The accused was not recommended for probation and a Community Service Order (“CSO), but was found suitable for a Day Reporting Order(“DRO”). Prosecution objected to community based sentences. Specific deterrence was the primary sentencing consideration and not rehabilitation. The accused had committed the series of offences four months after completing his probation, and the second set of offences in the later part of May 2019 had been committed while the accused was on bail.

Defence submissions for community based sentences

Counsel submitted that the accused should continue to be treated as a youthful offender and be sentenced to a DRO and a short detention order (“SDO”) for deterrence if necessary. The accused was a young and angry man, but had remained crime-free since the offences in May 2019, was progressing well in his employment and his rehabilitative trajectory was positive.

Alternatively, the accused should be sentenced to a global sentence of five weeks’ jail and fine – four weeks’ jail for the criminal intimidation offence, a fine of $1000 for the slapping incident, and one week’s jail and fine for the group assault.

Relevant legal principles when sentencing offenders at the cusp of the age of majority

The accused committed the first set of offences comprised in May 2019 three weeks before his 21st birthday, and the second set of offences in the same month a few days after his 21st birthday. His case first came before the mentions court in September 2020, and when he first came before me in November 2020 for his plea to be taken he was about 22 years 5 months old.

The High Court in A Karthik v Public Prosecutor [2018] 5 SLR 1289 (“Karthik”) stated that as regards offenders like the accused who were less than 21 years old at the time of offending but above 21 years old at the time of sentencing, the retrospective rationale underpinning the sentencing of young offenders continued to be relevant. The retrospective rationale seeks to justify giving a young offender a second chance by excusing his actions on the grounds of his youthful folly and experience, and rests on the offender’s age at the time of the offence: at [37].

As the accused was above 21 years old...