Public Prosecutor v Khairul Zaman Bin Mamon Basir
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Aedit Abdullah |
| Judgment Date | 30 March 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] SGDC 86 |
| Court | District Court (Singapore) |
| Year | 2007 |
| Published date | 30 November 2007 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Deputy Public Prosecutor Shahla Iqbal |
| Defendant Counsel | Ravi Arumugam |
| Citation | [2007] SGDC 86 |
| 30 March 2007 |
Judgment reserved. |
District Judge Aedit Abdullah:
1. The Accused, a 17 year-old male, pleaded guilty to and was convicted by me of one charge of robbery with common intention under s 392 read with s 34 Penal Code. I called for probation and reformative reports. The Prosecution objected to probation arguing that in view of the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances it was not warranted.
2. After having received submissions from both sides, I now give my decision as to the sentence that should be imposed.
The facts
3. The facts admitted by the Accused revealed that together with Mohamad Norhazri Bin Mohd Faudzi (21 years old) Yusry Shah Bin Jamal (17 years old) and Muhamad Dhiyauddin Bin Ahmad, a Malaysian, had travelled around in a car on 31 March 2006), looking for someone to rob. Sometime that night, the Accused had followed the others along to confront some other youths, but that fizzled out. The Accused and Yusry then agreed to a suggestion by Norhazri and Dhiyauddin to rob someone, but after driving around, they could not find any victim. They then met up and were joined by Mohamed Fadzli Bin Abdul Rahim (27 years old). Subsequently while driving to Geylang, Norhazri, Fadzli and Dhiyauddin came up with a plan to rob prostitutes; the Accused and Yusry agreed.
4. At Geylang Drive, the Accused, Yusry and Dhiyauddin alighted, while Norhazri and Fadzli drove around and found the victim on Geylang Road. The two of them negotiated and obtained the agreement of the victim to provide sexual services for $80. The victim got into the back seat of what was apparently a two door vehicle.
5. Upon returning to Geylang Drive, Norhazri signalled to the rest their arrival. Norhazri, Fadzli and the victim got out of the car; Norhazri and Fadzli gave the signal to the two others to execute their plan. The victim was punched on her face and head after she stepped out of the car; her handbag was yanked away by the Norhazri, and her jewellery snatched. The victim was continuously punched and kicked by Norhazri, Fadzli and Dhiyauddin, while the Accused and Yusry stood near the victim. When the victim lost her balance because of the assault, the Accused held her shoulder and abdomen to prevent her from falling, and told the victim to keep quiet by placing his finer on her lips.
6. The victim, whose blouse and bra were ripped, was dragged to the perimeter fencing of a nearby building, where her clothes were forcefully removed and she was sexually assaulted by the Accused’s accomplices. After that they fled in the car. The victim managed to flag a passing taxi at Nicoll highway, who brought her home. She then eventually lodged a police report, informing that she had been raped and robbed at about 5 am on 1 April 2006.
7. The victim lost jewellery, consisting of one white gold chain with a diamond pendent valued at $740, one white gold earring ($40), and one ring ($240). Her blue handbag and the items in it, namely, a handphone ($420), a lipstick, comb, lighter, cash of $260, a China passport and one airline ticket, were not recovered either.
8. The Accused and his accomplices eventually left Singapore via Woodlands checkpoint; Dhiyauddin gave the Accused and Yusry a sum of $60 from the money stolen from the victim; earlier apparently the Accused and Dhiyauddin had used their money to pay for refuelling of the petrol.
9. The medical report of the victim disclosed that she had multiple bruises on her head, upper and lower limbs and her trunk.
10. The Accused was eventually arrested on 27 August 2006 at Woodlands Checkpoint.
Antecedents
11. The Accused had no antecedents.
Mitigation
12. In the initial mitigation, it was stated that the Accused had decided to foolishly go along on a joy ride with the other accused. It was said that Accused was afraid of leaving the scene. He had however, not assaulted the victim, nor verbally or physically abused her. Neither did he wish to share any part of the items taken from her. It was said that the Accused was a mere observer, who had become involved because he was in the wrong company at the time, and had succumbed to peer pressure.
13. It was said that after the incident, the Accused did not associate with the accomplices any more. After the incident he kept himself occupied, by finding work and taking up courses; he is now a full time student at a madrasah, pursuing his O levels.
14. It was said that his family are supportive, and are monitoring him closely. The Accused has repented and regrets his actions.
Pre-sentence reports
15. Considering the age of the Accused, his lack of antecedents, and what was raised in mitigation, I called for presentence probation and reformative training reports. Prosecution indicated their strong objection to probation.
Probation report
16. The Probation report was favourable. It revealed that the family had been staying in Johore since 1996. Following the incident however, the family has returned to Singapore. His educational history indicated that he behaved in school and no disciplinary problems were noted. He did smoke but had stopped doing so since the incident.
17. The Probation report noted that the Accused had shown impaired judgment; it expressed the view that he needs to build up the ability to resist peer pressure, and develop better thinking skills. School records it was said, indicated his ability to respond to authority figures, and the value he placed on education. The Report found the parents to be supportive and there would likely be home support for community-based rehabilitation. The arrest and remand was an eye-opener for the Accused, making him realise the consequences of breach of the law. It was concluded that there is scope for him to be guided to become a responsible young adult.
18. Probation of 24 months, with time restriction, 120 hours of community service and the execution of a bond by the parents was recommended.
Reformative Training
19. The Reformative Training centre report noted that the parents visited him everyday at Queenstown Remand. The Accused was physically and mentally fit to under Reformative Training. He was assessed to be suitable to undergo Reformative Training.
Submissions at sentencing
Defence
20. For the Accused it was argued that, citing CS v PP
21. Reformative training was not suitable as it is better suited for recalcitrant young offenders. Cases in which RTC was imposed are markedly different from that of the Accused.
22. In oral arguments before me, the Defence argued further that the Accused is not a seasoned criminal, and distinguished cases cited by the Prosecution as involving those beyond community based rehabilitation. It was said that the present facts are the best for probation.
The Prosecution’s Submissions
23. The Prosecution contended that in other cases of robbery involving first offenders, reformative training is imposed, citing Sentencing Practice of the Subordinate Courts (2nd ed): the offences are serious and involve violence. The Prosecution also referred to Lim Wee Liat v PP MA 246 of 2001, in which a 16 year old first offender was sentenced to reformative training despite the victim not sustaining injuries, and the victim not being specifically a targeted female. The Prosecution also referred to Lee Kim Leng v PP MA 90 of 1998, in which imprisonment was imposed, and PP v Mok Ping Wuen Maurice
24. In CS v PP, which was cited as well by counsel for the Accused, reformative training was imposed; the District Judge there had noted the targeting of a female victim, and the seriousness of the offence. The Prosecution argued that the circumstances were similar to the present case in that the offence was planned and deliberate, there was the targeting of a female victim, the victim was sexually assaulted, the victim sustained injuries, and the offence took place in the early hours.
25. The Prosecution emphasised the serious circumstances, including that it was committed at 5 am in the morning, which would attract a minimum punishment of 3 years’ imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane. It was argued that it was in view of the seriousness with which Parliament viewed such offences that led to the prescription of a minimum sentence of this level.
26. Aggravating factors were present here, including the injuries caused to the victim, and the Accused was fully aware of the plan to commit robbery by luring the prostitute to a deserted place. General deterrence is required, and that reformative training or imprisonment and caning should be imposed.
27. In oral arguments, the Prosecution maintained the seriousness of the offence, particularly in view of the injuries, and that as disclosed in the SOF, the accused had already shown an inclination to confront other youths that night, and had gone along in a drive looking for victims; these were said to be indications of his propensity to commit crime.
28. It was further argued as well that the parents had known of the relationship of the Accused with the accomplices, and had thus shown a lack of control over the Accused.
29. Responding to the Defence, the Prosecution argued that RTC had been imposed even for first offenders,...
To continue reading
Request your trial