Public Prosecutor v Daryl Lim Jun Liang

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lim Keng Yeow
• Judgment Date: 29 May 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] SGDC 144
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC 920524/2014 & another
• Published date: 09 June 2015
• Year: 2015
• Hearing Date: 02 March 2015,20 April 2015,23 April 2015,29 March 2015,13 March 2015
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPPs Lee Zu Zhao and Nicholas Lai
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Luke Lee
• Citation: [2015] SGDC 144

District Judge Lim Keng Yeow: I. INTRODUCTION

This case involved essentially three characteristics. The offence here: Was that of voluntary causing hurt (“VCH”) under Section 323 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, “PC”); Was senselessly targeted at foreign workers in a manner as to call for a clear signal of disapprobation in sentencing; and Was committed by a youthful first offender found to have a demonstrably high capacity for community rehabilitation. The key question before me was how these conflicting considerations should be balanced so as to arrive at a fitting, proportionate and just sentence.

The offence

Daryl Lim Jun Liang came before me pleading guilty to a single VCH charge, consenting to another similar charge being taken into consideration for sentencing.

In the proceeded charge, the offender and his three accomplices met up at the wee hours of the morning on 3 October 2014, and set out to look for foreign workers to assault. A foreign national was set upon by them and was punched multiple times on the face and mouth by two of the offender’s accomplices. There was nothing to indicate that the offender had himself participated actively or assaulted the victim. It was accepted, however, that the two others had acted in furtherance of the common intention of the group of four and hence the offender was criminally liable.

The pre-sentencing process

After the offender was found guilty, the prosecution addressed the court indicating that it was not making any submissions on sentence. It evidently did not see the need to invite me to call for a reformative training report. Given that before me was a youthful offender aged just past 18 years with no criminal record, it was clearly appropriate to consider a probation report (“PSR”). Accordingly, I called for one and adjourned sentencing.

The matter was next mentioned on 2 March 2015, by which time the PSR had been prepared and it provided strong support for a probation order. The prosecution indicated, quite consistently as before, that it did not object to probation. But it sought the imposition of more stringent conditions, citing considerations such as how the offender had targeted innocent foreign workers. I was prepared to consider that, and further raised the issue of compensation. Learned counsel indicated that the family was willing and sought time to carry this out. I adjourned sentencing for that to be done.

On 13 March 2015, when the matter was next mentioned, the prosecution tendered a thick bundle consisting of written submissions on sentence and case authorities. The thrust of prosecution submissions was to emphasise the need to balance deterrence with rehabilitation in this case. While still accepting that rehabilitation through probation was viable, the prosecution sought the imposition of several specific conditions not included by the probation officer in her recommendations: 6 months to be intensive and 12 months supervised; 3 months residence in an Approved Institution; E-tagging for 6 months; To perform (not 80 but) 120 hours of community service; and A Court review in 4 months.

I gave consideration to the need for a sentence which conveyed the court’s disapprobation of the offence on one hand, and on the other, the rather low need here for onerous supervisory conditions over a very long period of time. Hence I had mixed concerns over the submissions of the prosecution, concerns such as: a) Whether probation was truly appropriate or adequate in this case, b) If it was, whether imposing the additional conditions as suggested by the prosecution was indeed necessary, and c) If imposing the conditions were not necessary, whether supervised probation closer to the form as originally recommended by the probation officer was sufficient to satisfy all the conflicting considerations.

I invited parties to express their views as to whether the community sentencing options under Part XVII of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, “CPC”) might provide a better balance of the considerations here. A possibility would be to impose a short detention order along with a community service order and a day reporting order. Neither party opposed consideration of this option. Accordingly, I called for the relevant suitability reports and adjourned sentencing.

On 20 April 2015, the suitability reports were received, which supported respective community sentences. The prosecution tendered yet another set of submissions, now objecting to probation altogether and contending that reformative training was the appropriate sentence in this case. Community sentencing was not directly addressed in the written submissions, though the learned DPP touched on it briefly when replying orally to learned counsel’s arguments, stating that the offender needed guidance for a longer duration than was possible under community sentencing.

Learned counsel was most fair-minded in expressing concern that the offender was still in touch with one of the co-accused persons, in agreeing that the targeting of innocent foreign works was troubling and in stating that his client lacked maturity and could do with orders requiring electronic tagging to help keep him in check. He also stated that the defence had no objections to most of the probation conditions earlier put forward by the prosecution and no objections to community sentencing. Concerning reformative training, his submission was that the offender’s role in the offence and his personal characteristics did not point to it as being necessary at all.

The sentence passed

Eventually, I decided that a community sentencing package of orders would best balance all considerations. I made the following three orders: 10 days’ detention in prison under a short detention order; 150 hours of community service under a community service order, to be completed within 12 months, and A 12-month day reporting order with daily time restriction from 10.00pm to 6.00am and electronic monitoring.

The prosecution subsequently filed an appeal against these orders. The learned DPP also applied for a stay of the orders so as not to prejudice the appeal, in which it appears that reformative training will continue to be sought. The stay was granted pending the hearing of the appeal.

II. APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES

I took into account a number of principles applicable to youthful offenders. Added attention will be given to considerations surrounding the imposition of reformative training as a rehabilitative option in these Grounds, given the prosecution’s eventual position and its prosecution of this appeal.

Rehabilitation: probation vs reformative training

The offender was aged 18 years and 2 months when his plea was taken, and was 17 years and 11 months when the offence as committed. Given his age, the courts would generally adopt, as a starting point, rehabilitation as the dominant sentencing consideration when deciding on the appropriate sentence: PP v Mok Ping Wuen Maurice [1999] 1 SLR 138.

Balanced with deterrence

Taking a rehabilitative approach does not inevitably mean probation orders. Probation is never to be preferred over reformative training in all circumstances. Reformative training could function equally well to advance the dominant principle of rehabilitation, especially where it has to be balanced with deterrence: PP v Mohammad Al Ansari bin Basri [2007] SGHC 187. Indeed, there must not be allowed to exist any perception that younger offenders are invariably placed on probation, lest younger offenders think they are entitled to leniency and will always be shielded from the consequences of their choices.

In Al Ansari (at [67]), it was further held that the relevant factors for the courts' consideration included: the seriousness of the offence; the culpability of the offender; the existence of antecedents; the nature of the rehabilitation best suited for the offender; the availability of familial support in the rehabilitative efforts; and any other special reasons or need for rehabilitation.

As pointed out in prosecution submissions, deterrence is an important consideration as regards cases of gratuitous violence and group violence: PP v Law Aik Meng [2007] 2 SLR 814. However, the court should not take the approach that every offence committed in a group should be punished more severely than if the offence were committed by the offender alone. The following passage in Tan Kay Beng v PP [2006] SGHC 117 (at [20] and [21]), also cited by the prosecution, is instructive:

More pertinently, Caird does not stand for the proposition that any and all offences committed by a group will invariably attract sentences of greater severity than if the offences were committed by an individual…Herein lies the subtle but critical point: the gist of the holding in Caird is not that every offence committed in a group should be punished more severely than if the offence were committed by the offender alone; it is that when an individual actively engages in group violence, a proportionate sentence for each participant should include consideration of the net effect of that group violence. Simply put, there may be violence committed in a group (by an individual who has taken things into his own hands) but this does not mean that the entire group, as a whole, has decided on or commenced on a course of violence for which all the group’s members must be inevitably held severally and jointly liable for each other’s actions. To cross the threshold, it is necessary to show that the offender has played an active part in the violence either by deed or by encouragement. [emphasis in original]

The court has to consider not merely the fact of participation in a group offence, but also the nature of the offender’s participation. Capacity for rehabilitation

Even for group offences or for gratuitous violence where deterrence does apply, it does not necessarily outweigh all...