Public Prosecutor v Gurmit Singh

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 05 April 1999
• Neutral Citation: [1999] SGHC 82
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 298 of 1998
• Date: 05 April 1999
• Year: 1999
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: RD Gangatharan (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Citation: [1999] SGHC 82
• Defendant Counsel: Kertar Singh and Sharanjit Kaur (Kertar & Co)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Prosecution not seeking deterrent sentence,Accused a police officer,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Whether deterrent sentence warranted,Whether court has discretion to grant deterrent sentence,Sentencing

Judgment:

YONG PUNG HOW CJ

Introduction

1.The respondent pleaded guilty to three charges under s 465 read with s 471 of the Penal Code (Cap 224). In each charge, the respondent was alleged to have forged signatures of rightful owners of properties and then keeping the properties at his home or in his office. Seventeen similar charges under s 465 of the Penal Code were also taken into consideration in sentencing. The respondent was fined $8,000 in default of eight weeks` imprisonment on each of the three charges. The fines, amounting to a total of $24,000 were paid by the respondent.

2.The prosecution appealed on the ground that the sentences passed were manifestly inadequate. After hearing the appeal, I allowed the appeal. I sentenced the respondent to three months` imprisonment on each of the three charges Two of the sentences were to run consecutively while the third sentence was ordered to run concurrently. Effectively, the respondent was to serve a total of six months` imprisonment. I also ordered that the fines remain. I now give my reasons.

3. The facts

The respondent was a police corporal attached to the Central Police Division. Between September 1994 to August 1997, he was performing the duties of an investigating officer. In the course of his duties, the respondent investigated several cases of shop lifting reported at his Division. The stolen properties were registered as case exhibits with the Case Property Store in the Police Division. Upon conclusion of the cases, the respondent forged acknowledgement slips that showed that he had returned exhibits which were the subject matter of the shoplifting cases investigated by him to the various complainants or owners. In most cases, he kept the properties at home or in his office.

4.The offences came into light when an audit check was conducted on all the case exhibits registered under the respondent`s name.

5. The trial judge`s decision

The trial judge in assessing the sentence, took into consideration the mitigating fact that the respondent had pleaded guilty to the charges which obviated the need of a long trial. He also took into account the fact that the respondent had shown remorse by admitting his guilt at the earliest opportunity in the investigation stage in all his `cautioned statements`. In this case, there had been no loss suffered by the victims and the respondent had not profited from his misdeeds. As such, the trial judge was of the view that a heavy fine combined with dismissal from the police force was sufficient to meet the ends of justice. He thus ordered that the respondent pay a fine of $8,000 on each of the three charges.

6. The appeal

The prosecution appealed against the sentence imposed as being manifestly inadequate. The main contentions were that, firstly, the trial judge had failed to place sufficient weight on the fact that the respondent was a police officer. Secondly, the trial judge had failed to consider that 17 similar charges were to be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing the appropriate sentence to be imposed.

7.I shall address the contention that the trial judge had failed to place sufficient weight on the fact that the respondent was a police officer first. It was submitted by the prosecution that the respondent was a police officer and was thus duty bound to uphold the law. In committing such an offence,...