Public Prosecutor v Gamal Abdul Naseer

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tan Puay Boon
• Judgment Date: 25 January 2005
• Neutral Citation: [2005] SGDC 17
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 31 January 2005
• Year: 2005
• Plaintiff Counsel: Jonathan Wong (Assistant Public Prosecutor)
• Defendant Counsel: S S Dhillon (Dhillon Dendroff and Partners)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Sentencing,Rioting,Section 147 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)
• Citation: [2005] SGDC 17

25 January 2005

District Judge Tan Puay Boon:

The Appeal

1 The accused was one of eleven accused persons charged with the offence of rioting under s 147 of the Penal Code (Cap 224). On 10 January 2005, he and five other accused persons pleaded guilty to their respective charges. Sentence was adjourned, and on 13 January 2005, the accused was sentenced to 20 months imprisonment and 6 strokes of the cane. As for the five other accused persons, reformative training reports were called for two who were both aged 18, and sentences of 19 months imprisonment and 6 strokes of the cane were given to each of the three remaining accused persons who were above the age of 21. Except for the accused, who had previous convictions of theft under s 379 of the Penal Code, the five other accused persons did not have any antecedent. Another accused person, aged 19, had pleaded guilty earlier in another court, and was sentenced to reformative training.

2 On 19 January 2005, the accused, who is serving sentence, filed a Notice of Appeal against his sentence through his new solicitors.

The facts

3 The facts of the case, set out in the Amalgamated Statement of Facts (Amended) [Exh P7], may be summarised as follows.

4 At about 8.45 pm on 21 February 2004, the accused and the eleven other persons who are involved in the present offence of rioting left the La Salle-SIA School at Goodman Road for the Padang located at Connaught Drive. With them were four other persons who were not involved in this case. Those who were involved are -

B1 - Gamal Abdul Naseer, M/23 (“the accused”);

B2 - Mohamad Azri, M/21;

B3 - Mustaffa;

B4 - Ahmad Syahmi Bin Mohamed Majin, M/18;

B5 - Abdul Rahman Bin Mariff, M/22;

B6 - Mohd Asroy Bin Abdul Halim, M/18;

B7 - Muhamed Ali Shiddique Bin Mohamed Samsi, M/19;

B8 - Mohamad Tamrin Bin Mohamed Yunus, M/22;

B9 - Muhamad Suffian Bin Jamil, M/22;

B10 - Mohamed Izbar Bin Mohamed, M/27;

B11 - Irwan Bin Sun’an, M/27; and

B12 - Mohammad Hafiz Bin Mohamed Said, M/23.

(I have been given to understand earlier that no action was being taken against B3, Mustaffa.)

5 The group travelled in a van driven by the accused, and arrived at the Padang at about 9.00 pm. After parking the van on the road shoulder, the group went to a metal bench at the Padang where they sat and chatted amongst themselves.

6 At about 10.00 pm, the two victims, Noor Mohamed Ali, M/16 (“V1”) and Muhammad Fadhil Bin Hasin, M/17 (“V2”), and about five other friends were walking along the footway cutting across the Padang towards St Andrew’s Road when V1 heard someone from the accused’s group shouting at them. V1 stopped and shouted back, and suddenly B1 to B11 ran from their seats towards him. Upon seeing this, the victims’ friends fled the scene, leaving them behind.

7 When they reached the victims, B1 to B12 began to assault them by punching both of them on their heads and torsos. During the assault, V2 managed to escape and ran away from the scene, leaving V1 behind to be further assaulted by B1 to B12. V2 fell on to the ground where B1 to B12 continued to assault him until he became unconscious. At that point, B1 to B11 fled and ran away from the scene. They and about four of their friends ran back to the van and were driven away by the accused. B12 ran towards the direction of St Andrew’s Road.

8 When the police and ambulance eventually arrived, V1 was conveyed to Singapore General Hospital while V2 separately sought treatment at the National University Hospital [Exh P8].

9 V1 suffered a severe head injury with diffuse axonal injury, bruises in the right peri-orbital region, left forehead, right corner of the mouth, abrasions over the bridge of the nose, multiple bruises and abrasions of both upper limbs and lower limbs. He was admitted and warded on 22 February 2004 with Glasgow Coma Score (“GCS”) of 9 and was discharged on 1 March 2004 with GCS of 14 after conservative treatment. According to Dr John Thomas, Head and Consultant of the Department of Neurosurgery, Singapore General Hospital, “diffuse axonal injury” means widespread brain injury resulting from shaking of the brain within the skull. Also, the GCS is an assessment of consciousness and severity of head injury. Normal consciousness is rated GCS 15 and the deepest Coma GCS 3. A patient is considered to be in a coma when GCS is 8 or less. A GCS of 9 after the injury therefore reflects a fairly significant head injury, ie., just above a coma.

10 V2 had blurring of vision and peri-orbital haematoma. He also had some facial and some epigastric signs of injury. He was warded, but for treatment of an old injury of spondylolysis of his spine which predated the assault.

The antecedents of the accused

11 On 13 May 2000, the accused was convicted of two charges of theft under s 379 of the Penal Code and fined $500 for each charge. One charge of using criminal force under s 352 of the Penal Code was admitted by the accused and taken into consideration with his consent for the purpose of sentencing.

The Mitigation

12 The accused is 23 years old and single. He has GCE N-levels, and works as a...