Public Prosecutor v AYW (a minor)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lim Keng Yeow
• Judgment Date: 10 April 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] SGJC 1
• Court: Juvenile Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: MA 071/2012/01
• Published date: 11 April 2012
• Year: 2012
• Hearing Date: 10 April 2012
• Plaintiff Counsel: SSI Abdul Razak
• Defendant Counsel: The Juvenile in person
• Citation: [2012] SGJC 1

District Judge Lim Keng Yeow: Background Facts

This case deals with a probationer’s non-compliance with probation requirements, which resulted in breach action being taken by a probation officer.

AYW (hereafter “the subject”) pleaded guilty as a juvenile offender to a charge of unlawful assembly under s 143 Penal Code. On 14 Jun 2011, he was placed on 21 months’ probation with the requirement, inter alia, to reside in Boys’ Town for 16 months, to be home or within Boys’ Town from 9pm to 6am daily, and to perform 80 hours of community service.

On 29 Dec 2011, the Probation Officer (“PO”) took breach action, citing that while on home leave from Boys’ Town, the subject has stayed away from home a second time. Since he did not present himself in court that day, a warrant had to be issued for his arrest.

Three months later, the subject was arrested and produced in court. A Progress Report (“PR”) was called for and the matter was next mentioned on 27 Mar 2012. After considering the PR, I revoked the probation order and ordered for him, then 16 years and 9 months, to be sent to a juvenile rehabilitation centre, Singapore Boys’ Home, for 15 months, under s 44(5)(a) read with s 44(1)(i) of the Children and Young Persons Act (“CYPA”, Cap 38). An appeal has been filed against this order.

Key Questions

It is important to note that breach action arose out of breach of probation requirements rather than because of a fresh offence. The fundamental question is not how the subject should be punished for his non-compliance. Rather, it is whether probation is still an appropriate means to support progress, or would the subject’s failure to comply indicate that a different regime is necessary.

To answer that question, several considerations need to be made: • Whether the breach was serious and whether there were acceptable reasons for it; • Whether the probationer’s overall response to probation still indicates that continuation of probation is possible; • Whether there are other relevant changes in circumstances following breach action which favour the continuation of probation. I now apply these considerations to the facts of this case.

Nature of Non-compliance

The purpose of probation, especially insofar as juveniles are concerned, is to place an offender under a sense of structure and discipline so as to facilitate and spur change. Reduced to its core irreducible minimum, probation means supervision and accountability, enforced through putting the offender under a package of requirements.

While we expect all requirements to be taken seriously, not every breach is equally serious. Some breaches could be purely technical in nature. For such breaches, some latitude is possible and breach action may not even be necessary. Even where such breaches persist despite warnings and breach action is taken, revocation of probation may not always be required.

There are breaches, however, which are more severe. Where the probationer removes himself from the structure and discipline he is to come under so as to render “supervision” and “accountability” meaningless, this would obviously be a matter of gravity. It strikes at what probation is fundamentally about and robs the order of effect. The fact that such a breach is persistent and prolonged and there are no acceptable reasons for it can only aggravate it further.

That appears to be the nature of the breach in this case. According to information provided by the PO at the point of taking breach action, the subject initially stayed away from home from 7 to 24 Dec 2011, a period of 17 days. Three days later, he left home again. It was then that the PO took breach action and a warrant of arrest had to be issued. The subject persisted in staying away regardless. It was not until 29 Feb 2012, more than 3 months later, that he was arrested.

While he stayed away, the parents were not able to get him to attend court on the date of breach action. They did have contact with him through telephone calls and SMS messages...