Public Prosecutor v Lee Wei Zheng Winston

• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 23 August 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] SGHC 187
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Rule against caning in instalments,Power of High Court to alter judgments of lower court,reg 98(3) Prisons Regulations (Cap 247, Rg 2, 2002 Ed),s 231 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),s 217 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Power of subordinate courts to alter judgments and sentences,Governing principles,Revision of proceedings,Whether circumstances of case warrant exercise of power,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Caning,Sentencing,ss 256(b)(iii) & 268 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Whether High Court can order further infliction of caning after execution of original sentence of caning
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Jaswant Singh (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Defendant Counsel: Respondent in person

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 (Cap 68) s 217, 231, 256(b)(iii), 268
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...