Public Prosecutor v Lee Wei Zheng Winston

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeYong Pung How CJ
Judgment Date23 August 2002
Neutral Citation[2002] SGHC 187
Date23 August 2002
Subject MatterWhether circumstances of case warrant exercise of power,Power of subordinate courts to alter judgments and sentences,reg 98(3) Prisons Regulations (Cap 247, Rg 2, 2002 Ed),Sentencing,Power of High Court to alter judgments of lower court,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Rule against caning in instalments,Revision of proceedings,s 231 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),s 217 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Governing principles,ss 256(b)(iii) & 268 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Caning,Whether High Court can order further infliction of caning after execution of original sentence of caning
Docket NumberCriminal Revision No 12 of 2002
Published date19 September 2003
Defendant CounselRespondent in person
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Plaintiff CounselJaswant Singh (Deputy Public Prosecutor)

Revision – Governing principles – Power of Subordinate Courts to alter judgments – Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) s 217 – Whether High Court had power to increase the number of strokes after the sentence of caning imposed by the district court had been executed

Facts

The respondent had pleaded guilty before a district judge to an amended charge of rioting with a deadly weapon whilst being a member of an unlawful assembly whose common object was to cause hurt, punishable under s 148 read with s 149 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) (the ‘PC’). The district judge, applying the principle of parity of sentencing and taking into account the sentences passed on the respondent’s accomplices by another court, sentenced the respondent to 30 months’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane.

That evening, before the court had arisen for the day, the case was re-mentioned before the district judge. The respondent’s counsel informed the district judge that one of the respondent’s accomplices had received a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane for the same offence. Based on this representation, the district judge reduced the respondent’s sentence of caning from six strokes to three strokes.

It later came to the district judge’s attention that the accomplice in question had been charged under a reduced charge, namely s 147 of the PC. The district judge applied to the High Court to exercise its powers of revision pursuant to s 268 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) (the ‘CPC’). The district judge submitted that he had had no power under the CPC to change the sentence of caning once it had been pronounced. While s 217 of the CPC allows the court to rectify mistakes that go beyond mere accidental slips and omissions before the court rises for the day, the district judge stated that as there had been no mistake in the original sentence, he had had no power to alter the original sentence.

The DPP submitted that the original sentence should be reinstated. The DPP further submitted that as the amended sentence of three strokes of the cane had already been executed, the respondent could not be caned again, even if the criminal revision was allowed.

Held

, allowing the application

(1) The power of the subordinate courts to alter judgments, including sentences, is governed by s 217 of the CPC. While s 217(1) lays down a general prohibition against alteration of judgments by the subordinate courts, s 217(2) provides that clerical errors may be rectified at any time and ‘any other mistake’ may be rectified before the court rises for the day. In the present case, there was no clerical error or other mistake in the original judgment. Therefore the district judge had no power to alter the original sentence of caning (see 6-7).

(2) The revisionary powers of the High Court are conferred by s 23 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Ed) and s 268 of the CPC. It is established law that such powers of revision must be exercised sparingly (see 11); Ang Poh Chuan v PP [1996] 1 SLR 326 followed.

(3) There was sufficient injustice to warrant the exercise of the court’s revisionary powers as the district judge had exceeded his powers in amending the original sentence. In addition, serious injustice stemmed from the fact that the amended sentence was not commensurate with the culpability of the respondent and violated the principle of parity. The respondent had received a sentence which was considerably lighter than that given to two of his accomplices even though all three were charged under s 148 of the PC (see 12-18).

(4) Section 231 of the CPC prohibits the execution of a sentence of caning in instalments. An order that the further three strokes be given to the respondent would be tantamount to the infliction of caning in instalments, since the respondent had already received the first three strokes and would necessarily have had to take the additional three strokes on a second occasion. Such an order would be contrary to s 231 of the CPC (see 25-31).

(5) The court ordered that the original sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane be reinstated, but that the further three strokes not be inflicted (see 34).

Case(s) referred to

Chiaw Wai Onn v PP

[1997] 3 SLR 445 (refd)
Ang Poh Chuan v PP [1996] 1 SLR 326 (folld)
Akalu Ahir v Ramdeo Ram AIR 1973 A 2145 (refd)
PP v Nyu Tiong Lam [1996] 1 SLR 273 (refd)
Liow Eng Giap v PP [1971] 1 MLJ 10 (refd)
PP v Ramlee and another action [1998] 3 SLR 539 (refd)
Liaw Kwai Wah & Anor v PP [1987] 2 MLJ 69 (refd)

Legislation referred to

Criminal Procedure Code (FMS Cap 6) [Mal] s 289
Penal Code (Cap 224) s 147, 148, 149
Prisons Act (Cap 247) s 77(1)
Prisons Regulations (Cap 247, R 2) reg 98(3)
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) s 23

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

Background

This was an application for criminal revision at the instance of a district judge. The respondent pleaded guilty before the district judge on 11 April 2002 to an amended charge of rioting with a deadly weapon, to wit, a hammer and a knife, whilst being a member of an unlawful assembly whose common object was to cause hurt, punishable under s 148 read with s 149 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) (the ‘PC’). On 9 May 2002, the district judge, applying the principle of parity of sentencing and taking into account the sentences passed on the respondent’s accomplices by another court, sentenced the respondent to 30 months’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane.

2 That evening, before the court had arisen for the day, the case was re-mentioned before the district judge. The prosecuting officer, the respondent and the respondent’s counsel were present before the court. The DPP was not present. The respondent’s counsel informed the district judge that one of the respondent’s accomplices, Tan Teck Chye (‘Tan’), had received a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane for the same offence. The respondent’s counsel had obtained this information from a copy of the schedule of accomplices’ sentences which the DPP had furnished him. It would appear that the district judge’s copy of the schedule indicated that Tan had been sentenced under a reduced charge, namely s 147 of the PC, as Tan’s original charge under s 148 of the PC had been cancelled in some manner. However, no such cancellation was reflected on the respondent’s counsel’s copy.

3 The respondent’s counsel, taking the view that both the respondent and Tan had been charged under s 148 of the PC, sought to have the respondent’s original sentence altered in order to achieve parity. Based on the representation that Tan had been sentenced under s 148 instead of s 147 of the PC, the district judge reduced the respondent’s sentence of caning from six strokes to three strokes.

4 It later came to the district judge’s attention that Tan had indeed been convicted under s 147 of the PC. On 12 June 2002, the district judge applied to the High Court to exercise its powers of revision pursuant to s 268 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) (the ‘CPC’). The district judge stated that he had had no power under the CPC to change the sentence of caning once it had been pronounced. While s 217 of the CPC allows the subordinate courts to rectify mistakes that go beyond mere accidental slips and omissions before the court rises for the day, the district judge submitted that there was no mistake in the original sentence and he therefore had no power to alter the original sentence.

The power to alter or review the original sentence

5 The power of the subordinate courts to alter judgments, including sentences, is governed by s 217 of the CPC, which reads:

(1) No court other than the High Court, when it has recorded its judgment, shall alter or review the judgment.

(2) A clerical error may be rectified at any time and any other mistake may be rectified at any time before the court rises for the day.

6 In Chiaw Wai Onn v PP [1997] 3 SLR 445, the High Court took the view that s 217(1) lays down a general prohibition against alteration of judgments by the subordinate courts. The High Court interpreted s 217(2) as an excepting proviso to the prohibition in s 217(1), prescribing the limited circumstances in which the subordinate courts can alter or review judgments.

7 In the present case, it is clear that there was no ‘clerical error’ or ‘any other mistake’ in the original judgment. While the district judge had been led to believe that the respondent had...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Mohamed Hiraz Hassim v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • February 1, 2005
    ...1 SLR (R) 397; [2001] 2 SLR 293 (folld) Ngian Chin Boon v PP [1998] 3 SLR (R) 655; [1999] 1 SLR 119 (folld) PP v Lee Wei Zheng Winston [2002] 2 SLR (R) 800; [2002] 4 SLR 33 (folld) PP v Koon Seng Construction Pte Ltd [1996] 1 SLR (R) 112; [1996] 1 SLR 573 (folld) PP v Nyu Tiong Lam [1995] 3......
  • Balqis-Maimon Abd Rahman v Soekiman bin Parjo
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • June 28, 2021
    ...Ng Chye Huey v PP [2007] 2 SLR(R) 106; [2007] 2 SLR 106 (refd) Oon Heng Lye v PP [2017] 5 SLR 1064 (refd) PP v Lee Wei Zheng Winston [2002] 2 SLR(R) 800; [2002] 4 SLR 33 (refd) PP v Nyu Tiong Lam [1995] 3 SLR(R) 788; [1996] 1 SLR 273 (refd) PP v Quek Chin Chuan [2000] 2 SLR(R) 138; [2000] 3......
  • Public Prosecutor v Oh Hu Sung
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • October 16, 2003
    ...cases on the effect of s 217 were Lim Teck Leng Roland v Public Prosecutor [2001] 4 SLR 61 and Public Prosecutor v Lee Wei Zheng Winston [2002] 4 SLR 33. In both, I accepted that s 217(1) lays down a general prohibition against the alteration of judgments by the subordinate courts, while s ......
  • Lim Bee Ngan Karen v PP
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • July 16, 2015
    ...robberies committed would be a separate and distinct offence. In this regard, I note that in Public Prosecutor v Lee Wei Zheng Winston [2002] 2 SLR(R) 800 (“Winston Lee”), Yong CJ stated (at [16]) that “[t]he principle of parity is well-established in local sentencing law” and cited, as an ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Case Note: REMARKS, MORE REMARKS AND A GROUNDS OF DECISION
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2009, December 2009
    • December 1, 2009
    ...[1949] MLJ 285. 9 See Chiaw Wai Onn v PP[1997] 3 SLR 445 followed in Lim Teck Leng Roland v PP[2001] 4 SLR 61; PP v Lee Wei Zheng Winston[2002] 4 SLR 33. Rising for the day would imply that the court has attended to all its business for the day: Chiaw Wai Onn v PP[1997] 3 SLR 445; Chuah Gin......
  • REVISITING THE HIGH COURT’S REVISIONARY JURISDICTION TO ENHANCE SENTENCES IN CRIMINAL CASES
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2009, December 2009
    • December 1, 2009
    ...law, is distinct from its statutory revisionary jurisdiction. 2 Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed. 3 Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed. 4 [1969—1971] SLR 238. 5 [2002] 4 SLR 33. 6 [2005] 3 SLR 104. 7 [1996] 1 SLR 573. 8 [2003] SGHC 237. 9 [2002] 1 SLR 290. 10 [2004] 2 SLR 93. 11 See Chua Qwee Teck v PP[1991] SLR 857 ......
  • Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2002, December 2002
    • December 1, 2002
    ...by a district judge to apply the principle of parity of sentencing led to the filing of a criminal revision in PP v Lee Wei Zheng Winston[2002] 4 SLR 33. The respondent pleaded guilty to a charge under s 148 read with s 149 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Ed) and was sentenced to 30 months......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT