Public Prosecutor v GFC

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Goh Kiat Yi
• Judgment Date: 09 December 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] SGYC 2
• Court: Youth Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Youth Court Appeal YA 0002-2022-01, Case No. YC-900047 of 2022
• Published date: 15 December 2022
• Year: 2022
• Hearing Date: 01 November 2022
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Sufian, Police Prosecutor,
• Defendant Counsel: Youth in person, with natural mother
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Youthful Offenders
• Citation: [2022] SGYC 2

District Judge Goh Kiat Yi: Introduction

The youth, [GFC] (“the youth”) pleaded guilty to a total of 4 charges and consented to another 11 charges to be taken into consideration. On 1 November 2022, having heard from the prosecution, the youth and his mother, I ordered the youth to be sent to the Singapore Boys’ Home, being a Juvenile Rehabilitation Centre, for a period of 24 months (“JRC order”). I also considered a probation suitability report (“PSR”) and the advice of 2 advisers from the panel of advisors under Section 38 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1993 (“the CYPA”) in arriving at my decision.

The youth being dissatisfied with the JRC order has filed an appeal. I now provide my full grounds of decision.

Background

The youth initially pleaded guilty to 4 charges and consented for the 8 remaining charges to be taken into consideration (“TIC”) on 25 July 2022. The 4 proceeded charges consists of 2 charges of harassment under the Moneylenders’ Act 2008, 1 charge of theft and 1 charge of dishonest misappropriation of property under the Penal Code 1871. The 8 remaining charges relate to various offences under the Penal Code 1871, the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act 1906 and the Covid-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020.

The youth was present with his parents at the hearing. In mitigation, the youth said that he felt sorry for whatever he had done. His mother asked for a chance to be given him. The father informed me that the mother has custody over the child and had no comments. The prosecution was prepared to leave orders to the court with no objections for a PSR to be called. I called for a PSR and adjourned the orders hearing to 6 September 2022. The youth was on bail at the material time.

Unfortunately, the youth was soon brought back to court with fresh charges filed against him. These included 2 fresh offences of dishonest misappropriation of movable property committed on 6 August 2022. The youth appeared before me again on 28 September 2022 where he admitted to three additional charges (including the two aforesaid charges for the fresh offences) and consented for them to be taken into consideration. I adjourned the orders hearing to 1 November 2022 to deal with all 15 charges on a global basis pending the submission of the PSR. The following table sets out the list of charges with a description of the offences for ease of reference.

S/N	DATE OF PLEA	CHARGE	PROCEED / TIC
YAC number	Offence
1.	25 July 2022	YAC-900356-2022	Harassment by splashing paint onto a house door and leaving a debtor note on 19 June 2022. Section 47(2)(a) read with (“r/w”) Section 47(3)(b)(i) of the Moneylenders Act 2008 r/w Section 34 of Penal Code 1871.	Proceed
2.	YAC-900436-2022	Harassment by splashing paint onto a house door and left debtor note on 19 June 2022. Section 47(2)(a) r/w Section 47(3)(b)(i) of the Moneylenders Act 2008 r/w with Section 34 of Penal Code.	TIC
3.	YAC-900437-2022	Harassment by splashing paint onto a house door and left debtor note on 18 June 2022. Section 47(2)(a) r/w Section 47(3)(b)(i) of the Moneylenders Act 2008 r/w Section 34 of Penal Code.	Proceed
4.	YAC-900438-2022	Fraudulent possession of property on 19 June 2022. Section 35(1) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act 1906.	TIC
5.	YAC-900439-2022	Theft of wallet on 6 June 2022. Section 379 of Penal code 1871.	Proceed
6.	YAC-900441-2022	Took unattended E-Scooter on 4 March 2022. Section 403 r/w Section 34 of the Penal Code 1871.	Proceed
7.	YAC-900442-2022	Stole 2 packets of cigarettes on 5 June 2022. Section 380 r/w Section 34 of the Penal Code 1874.	TIC
8.	YAC-900443-2022	Spraying flammable fluid likely to cause fire on 5 October 2020. Section 285 of the Penal Code 1871.	TIC
9.	YAC-900444-2022	Stole 1 bottle of Coca-Cola on 12 September 2021. Section 380 of the Penal Code 1871.	TIC
10.	YAC-900445-2022	Failure to wear mask onboard MRT on 8 November 2021. Section 34(7)(a) of the Covid-19(Temporary Measures) Act 2020.	TIC
11.	YAC-900446-2022	Engaging in social gathering of more than 2 persons on 8 November 2021. Section 34(7)(a) of the Covid-19(Temporary Measures) Act 2020.	TIC
12.	YAC-900447-2022	Stole 1 can of beer on 12 May 2022. Section 380 of the Penal Code 1871.	TIC
13.	28 September 2022	YAC-900565-2022	Stole 1 cashcard from motorcycle on 6 August 2022. Section 403 of the Penal Code 1871 r/w Section 34 of the Penal Code 1871.	TIC
14.	28 September 2022	YAC-900566-2022	Stole 1 cashcard from motorcycle on 6 August 2022. Section 403 of the Penal Code 1871 r/w Section 34 of the Penal Code 1871.	TIC
15.	28 September 2022	YAC-900567-2022	Stole 1 cash card from motorcycle on 18 June 2022. Section 403 of the Penal Code 1871 r/w Section 34 of the Penal Code 1871.	TIC

Issue to be determined

As the youth had pleaded guilty, the main issue to be determined is the appropriate order to be passed.

The Law The relevant approach

The court approaches orders in respect of youthful offenders in two stages. As held in Public Prosecutor v Koh Wen Jie Boaz [2016] 1 SLR 334 (“Boaz Koh”) at [28]: “28 It is well established that when a court sentences a youthful offender, it approaches the task in two distinct but related stages (PP v Mohammad Al-Ansari bin Basri [2008] 1 SLR(R) 449 (“PP v Al-Ansari”) at [77]–[78]). At the first stage of the sentencing process, the task for the court is to identify and prioritise the primary sentencing considerations appropriate to the youth in question having regard to all the circumstances including those of the offence. This will then set the parameters for the second stage of the inquiry, which is to select the appropriate sentence that would best meet those sentencing considerations and the priority that the sentencing judge has placed upon the relevant ones.

The Court further observed at [34] that:

“34 … if rehabilitation remains the primary consideration, then the court can consider one from among the wide range of sentencing options it has at its disposal. These include options such as community-based rehabilitation, probation, placement in a juvenile rehabilitation centre, reformative training, fines, caning and imprisonment. Each of these sentencing options, or a combination of them, vindicates one or more of the classical principles of sentencing (ie, retribution, deterrence, prevention and rehabilitation as stated by Lawton LJ in his seminal decision in R v James Henry Sargeant (1974) 60 Cr App R 74 at 77) to varying degrees and extents within an overarching emphasis on the rehabilitation of the youthful offender.

Statutory principles

I also note the statutory directive contained in Section 4(b) of the CYPA which states that in all matters relating to the administration or application of the Act, the welfare and best interests of the child or young person must be the first and paramount consideration. As observed in Public Prosecutor v GCB (A Minor) [2019] SGYC 1 (“GCB”):

“The Youth Court operates with the welfare and best interests of the juvenile as its first and paramount consideration. Keenly aware that the offenders before the court are still very young and are capable of being moulded, the court’s primary concern is not that of calibrating and meting out punishment proportionate to the offence. Neither is deterrence a foremost consideration, especially general deterrence. Instead, the court focuses primarily on finding rehabilitative measures and solutions that are most workable for the juvenile, given the facts and circumstances of the case.

4 Such an approach cannot mean that a less intrusive or less severe option such as probation is always chosen, as though every juvenile would be entitled to it by virtue of his youthfulness. The court may generally prefer a parsimonious approach, favouring less intrusive and less severe options wherever possible. But it has ultimately to ensure that the order chosen would be one that best serves the interests of the young offender before it. More rigorous orders will have to be imposed where they are needed.” Rehabilitation is the dominant consideration

The youth was born on 14 September 2007. He was 15 years and 1 month old at the time of my orders. The offences he committed took place between October 2020 and August 2022 when he was between 13 and 15 years old. The bulk of the offences related to theft and misappropriation of moveable property. The other charges were in respect of harassment and breach of Covid-19 regulations. Whilst the offences were numerous and serious, the youth did not cause direct physical harm to the victims. Given his age and considering the nature of the offences, rehabilitation remains the dominant consideration under the first stage of the inquiry.

The appropriate orders for the youth

Having determined that rehabilitation remains the dominant consideration, I turn now to the appropriate orders to be made and the key question is whether a less severe option of probation or a more rigorous JRC order is appropriate.

The Probation Suitability Report

A PSR was duly prepared by Mr Ben Poh, a probation officer (“the probation officer”). In his report, the probation officer assessed the youth to be unsuitable for probation and recommended that the youth be placed in the Singapore Boys’ Home under a JRC order for 24 months.¹

The probation officer considered the youth’s risk of re-offending to be very high and identified numerous risk factors as follows: ² The youth’s involvement in the offences highlighted his pro-criminal attitudes, poor consequential thinking, and misguided sense of peer...