Public Prosecutor v Jagwani Deepak Ashok

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lee-Khoo Poh Choo
• Judgment Date: 12 April 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] SGDC 110
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC 924771/2016 and Others
• Year: 2017
• Published date: 11 January 2018
• Hearing Date: 07 October 2016,04 April 2017
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPP Jaine Pang
• Defendant Counsel: Accused in person.
• Citation: [2017] SGDC 110

District Judge Lee-Khoo Poh Choo: Background

This Judgement arose from the Accused’s appeal against the imposition of 20 weeks imprisonment in lieu of caning.

On 7.10.2016, the Accused pleaded guilty to 2 charges of trafficking in controlled drugs which were committed on 5.10.2015 and 8.3.2016, 1 charge of consumption of methamphetamine and 1 charge of possession of controlled drug. 16 other charges for drug related offences were taken into consideration for purposes of sentencing. I sentenced the Accused to serve a total sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment with effect from 10.3.2016 and the mandatory minimum 10 strokes of the cane.

On 22.3.2017, the Accused’s appeal against sentence was dismissed.

On 24.3.2017, the prison authorities wrote to inform that the Accused was unfit for caning because of his medical condition.

Post sentence hearing

Further hearing was convened on 4.4.2017 for the Court to revise the sentence pursuant to section 332 of the Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC”). The Accused said he had been sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment and asked for leniency. When asked, he admitted he was unable to think of any reasons why leniency ought to be shown. The learned DPP urged the Court to impose 2 weeks’ imprisonment in lieu of each stroke of the cane, this being the norm. He reiterated that there were no exceptional circumstances to depart from the norm.

Section 325(2) provides that where a person was exempted from caning, the Court may impose additional imprisonment of not more than 12 months in lieu of the caning, unless there were special circumstances that justify otherwise (see PP v Nguyen Thi Thanh Hai [2016]SGHC 66; PP v Kisshahllini a/p Paramesuvaran [2016]SGHC 57; PP v Razak bin Bashir [2017]SGHC 33). I believe the same principle ought to apply in this case where the Accused was certified to be medically unfit for caning on medical grounds, i.e. additional imprisonment term should be imposed pursuant to section 332(2)(b) of the CPC, unless there are special or exceptional circumstances to justify otherwise.

I agreed with the learned DPP that there was no reason or basis to treat this case differently. And, as stated in preceding paragraph 5, neither could the Accused explain why he should be dealt with more leniently. Hence, I decided that additional imprisonment term should be imposed in lieu of caning. After all, the punishment of caning was in addition to the custodial sentence for the offence of...