Public Prosecutor v Faizal Bin Mustaffa

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Luke Tan
• Judgment Date: 03 October 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] SGDC 232
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC 923116-2020 & Ors, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9182-2022-01
• Published date: 06 October 2022
• Year: 2022
• Hearing Date: 15 September 2022
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ms Heershan Kaur (Attorney General Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr. Loong Tse Chuan and Ms Wee Su-ann (Allen & Gledhill LLP)
• Citation: [2022] SGDC 232

District Judge Luke Tan: Introduction

The accused, Faizal bin Mustaffa, a 34-year-old male Singaporean, pleaded guilty to three charges as follows: one charge of rioting under s 147 of the Penal Code, Cap 224, punishable under (p/u) s 50T(1)(a) of the Prisons Act (Cap. 247, 2000 Rev. Ed.) (‘rioting charge’), one charge of voluntarily causing hurt with common intention under s 323 r/w s 34 of the Penal Code p/u s 50T(1)(a) of the Prisons Act (‘VCH charge’), and one charge under s 47AA(2)(a) of the CDSA Corruption, Drug Trafficking and other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (CDSA), which was amalgamated pursuant to s 124(4) and punishable under s 124(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (‘CDSA charge’). These three charges are collectively referred to as the ‘proceeded charges’.

In addition, there were two other charges under section 34(7)(a) of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020 (No. 14 of 2020) that were taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing (‘TIC charges’).

The offences set out in the rioting and VCH charges occurred on the same date and involved the same victim. Nevertheless, they were distinct in that there was a break in time between the two offences, with the rioting charge occurring first, and at a slightly different location from VCH charge. The latter also involved three offenders, rather than five offenders for the rioting charge. As for the CDSA charge, it involved the accused’s illicit use of public funds which had originally been set aside for self-employed persons affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Prosecution sought a global sentence of 68 to 76 months’ imprisonment plus six strokes of the cane for the principal offences, with an additional enhanced sentence of 476 days’ imprisonment in relation to the accused’s breach of his remission order connected with the rioting charge. The Defence asked for a global sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment and $6,000 fine for the principal offences, with an additional enhanced sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment in relation to the accused’s breach of his remission order.

After considering the detailed facts of the case, and the comprehensive arguments put forward by the Prosecution and the Defence, I sentenced the accused to an aggregate sentence of 58 months’ imprisonment plus an enhanced sentence of 476 days' imprisonment, with effect from 17-November-2020, and also to six strokes of the cane. The sentence breakdown was as follows:

S/N	Charge Number	Date of offence	Sentences Imposed (all consecutive)
1.	DAC 923116-2020 (Rioting charge)	15th November 2020	38 months’ imprisonment and enhanced sentence of 476 days' imprisonment, plus 6 strokes of the cane
2.	DAC 915955-2021(VCH charge)	15th November 2020	18 months’ imprisonment
3.	DAC 901594-2022 (CDSA charge)	Between 20th to 30th October 2020	2 months’ imprisonment
Aggregate	58 months’ imprisonment and enhanced sentence of 476 days' imprisonment, plus 6 strokes of the cane

The accused being dissatisfied, has filed an appeal against sentence. I now give the reasons for my decision.

Details of the Proceeded Charges

The charges that the accused pleaded guilty to are reproduced below: a) Rioting Charge (DAC 923116-2020)

You… are charged that you all, on 15 November 2020, at or about 1.50 a.m. at Block 9, North Bridge Road, Singapore, at the void deck, together with Muhammad Zulqarnain bin Suhaimi, Muhammad Danish Al’aqib bin Noordin, Mohamad Effendi bin Murad and Salman bin Abu Samah, formed an unlawful assembly, whose common object was to voluntarily cause hurt to Ibrahim bin Omar (Male, 60 years old at the material time) and in the prosecution of the common object of the said assembly, all of you did use violence on the said Ibrahim bin Omar, to wit, by punching and kicking him, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 147 of the Penal Code (Cap. 224, 2008 Rev Ed).

And further, that you, from 18 August 2020 to 5 March 2022, were subject to a remission order made by the Commissioner of Prisons under Division 2 or 3 of Part VB of the Prisons Act (Cap. 247, Revised Edition 2000) (“PA”) which remission order is subject to the basic condition under section 50S(1) of the Prisons Act and while the remission order was in effect you, on 15 November 2020, committed the aforesaid offence and upon conviction and the imposition of a sentence reflected under section 50S(1)(b) of the PA, shall be deemed to have breached the basic condition of your remission order, and you are thereby liable to be punished under section 50T(1)(a) of the Prisons Act with an enhanced sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding the remaining duration of the remission order of 476 days from 15 November 2020 to 5 March 2022 for that offence.

b) VCH charge (DAC 915955-2021)

You…are charged that you, on 15 November 2020, between 1.53 a.m. and 1.55 a.m., at the void deck of Block 9 North Bridge Road, Singapore, together with Muhammad Zulqarnain bin Suhaimi and Salman bin Abu Samah, in furtherance of the common intention of you all, voluntarily caused hurt to one Ibrahim bin Omar, male 60-years old at the material time, to wit, by kicking and punching the said Ibrahim bin Omar, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 323 read with section 34 of the Penal Code

And further, that you, from 18 August 2020 to 5 March 2022, were subject to a remission order made by the Commissioner of Prisons under Division 2 or 3 of Part VB of the Prisons Act (Cap. 247, Revised Edition 2000) (“PA”) which remission order is subject to the basic condition under section 50S(1) of the Prisons Act and while the remission order was in effect you, on 15 November 2020, committed the aforesaid offence and upon conviction and the imposition of a sentence reflected under section 50S(1)(b) of the PA, shall be deemed to have breached the basic condition of your remission order, and you are thereby liable to be punished under section 50T(1)(a) of the Prisons Act with an enhanced sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding the remaining duration of the remission order of 476 days from 15 November 2020 to 5 March 2022 for that offence.

c) CDSA charge (DAC 901594-2022)

You…are charged that you, on 16 separate occasions, between 20 October 2020 and 30 October 2020, did use property, to wit, a sum of $9,000 in your POSB bank account number XXX by transferring and withdrawing the sum, and the sum may be reasonably suspected of being benefits from criminal conduct, to wit, the National Trades Union Congress (“NTUC”) was deceived by an application under the “Self Employed Person Income Relief Scheme” in your name, which falsely stated that you earned a trade income of $3,683 between January 2020 and March 2020, and was thereby dishonestly induced into delivering $9,000 to your POSB bank account, and you have failed to account satisfactorily on how you came by the sum, which acts amount to 16 separate incidents of the commission of an offence under section 47AA(1) punishable under section 47AA(2)(a) of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act, Chapter 65A, and when taken together amount to a course of conduct and which charge is amalgamated pursuant to section 124(4) and punishable under section 124(8)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)

And further, that you, from 18 August 2020 to 5 March 2022, were subject to a remission order made by the Commissioner of Prisons under Division 2 or 3 of Part VB of the Prisons Act (Cap. 247, Rev. Ed. 2014) which remission order is subject to the basic condition under section 50S(1) of the Prisons Act and while the remission order is in effect you, between 20 October 2020 and 30 October 2020, committed the aforesaid offence and upon conviction and the imposition of a sentence reflected under section 50S(1)(b) of the Prisons Act, shall be deemed to have breached the basic condition of your remission order, and you are thereby liable to be punished under section 50T(1)(a) of the Prisons Act with an enhanced sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding the remaining duration of the remission order of 502 days from 20 October 2020 to 5 March 2022 for that offence.

Summary of Facts

The Prosecution put up a very comprehensive 9-page statement of facts (SOF). I have summarised the main aspects of the SOF below.

Rioting and VCH offences on 15 November 2020 Facts pertaining to the rioting charge

The co-accused persons are: Mohamad Effendi Bin Murad (“Effendi”) Muhammad Danish Al’Aqib Bin Noordin (“Danish”). Muhammad Zulqarnain bin Suhami (“Zul”). Salman bin Abu Samah (“Salman”).

The victim is Ibrahim Bin Omar, a 62-year-old male Singaporean (D.O.B. 18 November 1959). He was 60 years old at the material time.

The accused, the co-accused persons, and the victim were gang members of ‘Salakau 369’ (the “Gang”). The victim was the headman of the Gang, and Salman was directly under him, while the accused was the headman of the Kallang Airport division of the Gang. Danish, Zul, and Effendi were under the accused in the Kallang Airport division.

The witnesses are: Zulkiflee Bin Raafioon (“Zulkiflee”). Hamidah Binte Khir (“Hamidah”). Zahari Bin Rosmadi (“Zahari”). Putri Nur Syafirah Binte Rosdi (“Putri”). Putri was Effendi’s girlfriend at the material time. Nur Syuhadah Binte Roland Rosmadi (“Syuhadah”). Syuhadah is Zahari’s sister. Muhammad Zulkarnain Bin Zolkiple (“Zolkiple”).

On 15 November 2020, at about 9.30am, one Shukor bin Ghani (the “Complainant”) was walking along the void deck of Block 9, North Bridge Road, Singapore 190009 (“the Block”) when he saw the victim lying motionless beside a rubbish chute, between lobby A of the...