Public Prosecutor v Chee Kok Yeong

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Eric Tin Keng Seng
• Judgment Date: 12 March 2003
• Neutral Citation: [2003] SGMC 8
• Year: 2003
• Published date: 02 October 2003
• Citation: [2003] SGMC 8
• Plaintiff Counsel: James Ng (Police Prosecutor),Ong Peng Boon (M/s Ong & Co)
• Court: Magistrates' Court (Singapore)

1 This is an appeal against sentence by Mr Chee Kok Yeong ("Mr Chee").

2 Mr Chee originally faced 7 charges for offences under s 5(3)(a) of the Betting Act (Cap. 21). After successful representations, the prosecution only proceeded with 3 charges as per the schedule tendered (marked "A"). The proceeded charges stated that Mr Chee at No 64, Hazel Park Terrace Blk 29 unit #05-10, Singapore, acted as a bookmaker by accepting bets to forecast the results of various soccer match fixtures.

3 Mr Chee pleaded guilty to the 3 charges (marked "P1" to "P3"). He understood the nature and consequences of his plea. I highlighted to him the prescribed mandatory punishments.

Summary of Facts

4 Mr Chee admitted to the Statement of Facts without any qualification (marked "B"). The facts revealed that on 16 May 2002 at about 1.30 am, Staff Sergeant Low Soon Hoe of the Gambling Suppression Branch, CID, together with a party of officers led by ASP Lilian Tan, raided Blk 1 Hougang Avenue 3, #03-304 for soccer bookmaking activities under the provisions of the Betting Act. Therein, Mr Chee was found. A search was conducted in his presence and the following items were found:

a. a handphone;

b. a computer CPU, monitor, keyboard, mouse and modem;

c. some diskettes;

d. some pieces of paper with entries;

e. some letters; and

f. a laptop computer.

5 On the same day at about 4 am, the officers visited Mr Chee’s rented apartment at No 64 Hazel Park Terrace, Blk 29 at unit #05-10. A search was conducted in his presence and the following items were seized:

a. some pieces of paper with entries;

b. some books and diary; and

c. some pens and calculator.

6 During the raid, several incoming calls were monitored by the officers on the handphone seized. Mr Chee was then placed under arrest and brought to CID for investigation.

7 Investigation revealed that Mr Chee had rented the apartment in question to conduct his soccer bookmaking activities with the use of the exhibits seized. The exhibits seized pertained to fixtures of the "English Premier League" match on 11 May 2002, "Italian Seria A" and "Spanish Primera Division" match on 5 May 2002, and "FA Cup" match on 4 May 2002. Mr Chee acted as a bookmaker on all the 3 occasions. A breakdown of the fixtures and corresponding value of bets is as follows:

Charge	Date	Fixtures	Value of bets
MAC 360/03	11 May 2002	Arsenal vs Everton Black Burn vs Fulham Leeds vs Middlesbrough Liverpool vs Ipswich Man. Utd vs Charlton Southampton vs Newscastle Chelsea vs Aston Villa Sunderland vs Derby	$169,600
MAC 361/03	5 May 2002	Brescia vs Bologna Chievo Verona vs Atalanta Lazio vs Inter Milan Piacenza vs Hellas Verona Torino vs Roma Udinese vs Juventus Malaga vs Valencia	$138,500
MAC 362/03	4 May 2002	Arsenal vs Chelsea	$79,650

Charges taken into consideration

8 After Mr Chee was convicted on his plea of guilt, he admitted to 4 other similar offences and consented to have them taken into consideration for the purpose of sentence (marked "P4" to "P7").

Antecedents and Mitigation

9 Mr Chee was a first offender. His counsel Mr Ong Peng Boon tendered a brief written mitigation plea (marked "C") emphasising on Mr Chee’s personal and family circumstances and predicament. Counsel also highlighted that Mr Chee was candid and forthright during investigation, and was a loyal grassroots leader. Counsel also drew my attention to the fact that Mr Chee was seeking medical treatment at the Institute of Mental Health for insomnia and depression. He also suggested that Mr Chee was more of a runner collecting bets from his friends. Finally, counsel urged me to consider a minimum sentence for each charge and to order only two imprisonment terms to run consecutively.

Sentencing framework

10 In passing sentence, I had briefly referred to the sentencing framework for such offences and two relevant case precedents. These grounds of decision elaborate what I had said in court.

11 Section 20 of the Betting Act empowers a Magistrate’s Court to impose the full penalty or punishment in respect of any offence under the Act notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 68).

12 An offence under s 5(3) of the Betting Act attracts mandatory imprisonment up to 5 years, and mandatory fines of between $20,000 to $200,000. Parliament in amending the Betting Act in 1986 made it clear that this sentencing framework was designed to deter bookmakers and their agents: Singapore Parliamentary Report, Vol. 46, cols 723-8. The relevant sentencing considerations can be found in Sentencing Practice of the Subordinate Courts (2000 Ed.). At pp. 719-720, the learned authors indicated that due to the ease of commission, coupled with the difficulty of detection and proof, of such offences, the sentencing basis is deterrence. The sentences for such offences are generally linked to the value of the bets, which gives an indication of the size and lucrativeness of the operation.

Relevant mitigating factors

13 The prosecution did not challenge counsel’s point that Mr Chee cooperated with the authorities. I regarded this as a mitigating factor in his favour.

14 His prior clean record also stood in his favour.

15 While Mr Chee had pleaded guilty instead of claiming trial, he was in fact caught by the raiding party at his own residence and later brought to his rented apartment where incriminating exhibits were found. Under such circumstances, there could be little mitigating value in his plea of guilt: Wong Kai Chuen Philip v PP [1991] 1 MLJ 321.

16 That Mr Chee was a runner than a main operator also carried little mitigating value. On the other hand, if he were involved at a higher level, that would have justified a higher sentence. It would be erroneous to consider a runner an insignificant player for such illegal betting activities. The main operator ultimately depends on runners to receive and negotiate bets. Masterminds can do little without legs. Therefore, the practical way to wipe out such activities is to sever the "limbs" of the main operators by incapacitating and deterring them with tough sentences. Legally, the Betting Act also does not distinguish between "runners" and "main operators". The statutory definition of "bookmaker" includes "runner"; the same maximum penalties under s 5(3)(a) of the Act apply.

17 As for Mr Chee’s personal and family difficulties, it is trite law that these would carry very little mitigating weight if at all save for exceptional circumstances: see Lai Oei Mui Jenny v PP [1993] 3 SLR 305. The learned Yong Pung How CJ’s observations in PP v Tan Fook Sam [1999] 2 SLR 523 are most apposite,

First, the respondent had pleaded for leniency as he has two parents, a wife who is not working and two children to support. The short answer to this is that the hardship was within presage and the respondent had brought it upon himself. The position is that hardship caused to the family by way of financial loss occasioned by imprisonment is of little weight today; and of no weight if the term is short: Lim Choon Kang v PP [1993] 3 SLR 927 at p 928. Hardship because of other family circumstances is also disregarded. Such hardship is the price which the convicted person must bear and cannot affect what would otherwise be the right sentence: R v Ingham (1980) 2 Cr App R (S) 184 as cited in Lai Oei Mui Jenny v PP [1993] 3 SLR 305 at p 308.

Relevant aggravating factors

18 On the other hand, Mr Chee was undoubtedly involved in a rather well-organised operation. This can be readily inferred from the paraphenalia seized which included info-communications equipment, an assortment of fixtures and matches, and the rather substantial value of bets.

19 Operating from a rented apartment instead of his own residence, Mr Chee clearly knew the importance of concealment. This would have made the offences harder to detect. But for the sting operation, this illicit bookmaking operation could have continued. The...