Public Prosecutor v Chong Ying Chow
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Tan Jen Tse |
| Judgment Date | 15 March 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] SGDC 69 |
| Court | District Court (Singapore) |
| Docket Number | DAC 943513/2015 & 2 others |
| Year | 2017 |
| Published date | 11 January 2018 |
| Hearing Date | 08 July 2016,27 September 2017,07 July 2016 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Deputy Public Prosecutors Chan Yi Sheng and Theong Li Han |
| Defendant Counsel | Accused in person |
| Citation | [2017] SGDC 69 |
The accused was convicted after trial of consuming monoacetylmorphine, an offence under s 8(b)(ii) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”). Due to his antecedents, the offence attracted the enhanced “LT2” sentence of a minimum of 7 years’ imprisonment and 6 strokes of the cane. The accused was a repeat LT2 offender.
After conviction, he pleaded guilty to 2 other charges of possession of diamorphine, punishable under s 8(a) of the MDA, which had been stood down.
For the LT2 offence, he was sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment and to 6 strokes of the cane. For each drug possession offence, he was sentenced to the minimum 2 years’ imprisonment (which is applicable to repeat offenders).
Sentence in the first drug possession offence was to run consecutively with the LT2 sentence. The accused would therefore serve a total of 10 years’ imprisonment with 6 strokes of the cane. No appeal was filed against conviction and the original sentence.
The prison authorities wrote to the court on 1 September 2016 certifying that the accused was unfit for caning permanently as he had a right above knee amputation and recurrent lower limb deep vein thrombosis.
As caning could not be effected under s 331 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) (“CPC”), this case was fixed for further hearing for the court to revise its sentence pursuant to s 332 of the CPC.
At the further hearing on 27 September 2016, the prosecution left it to the court to decide whether to impose any additional sentence in-lieu of caning.
The accused said that he hoped that the court will not impose a further sentence of imprisonment. He did not ask for caning to be waived and said that sentence imposed was already crushing.
He was sentenced to an additional 1 month’s imprisonment in-lieu of the 6 strokes the cane.
On or around 16 December 2016, the accused filed a Notice of Motion seeking an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal against the sentence of imprisonment in-lieu of caning. The application was allowed on 28 February 2017 by the High Court.
On 1 March 2017, the accused filed a Notice of Appeal against the additional one month’s imprisonment imposed in-lieu of the 6 strokes of the cane.
I now set out my reasons for the revision of sentence.
When an offender is found medically unfit for caning under s 331 of the CPC, s 332 will apply. This section provides:-
332.—(1) Where a sentence of caning is wholly or partially prevented from being carried out under section 331, the offender must be kept in custody until the court that passed...
To continue reading
Request your trial