Public Prosecutor v Lee Han Fong Lyon

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 30 April 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGHC 89
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Magistrate’s Appeal No 272 of 2013
• Year: 2014
• Published date: 05 May 2014
• Hearing Date: 25 April 2014
• Plaintiff Counsel: Lin Yinbing and Krystle Chiang (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Alfred Dodwell and Maiyaz Al Islam (Dodwell & Co LLC)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Statutory offences,Misuse of Drugs Act,Offences,Offences against public servants,Road Traffic Act
• Citation: [2014] SGHC 89

Choo Han Teck J:

This was the prosecution’s appeal against sentence. On 6 June 2012, the respondent pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of: one charge, for an offence of impersonating a police officer, under s 170 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed); one charge, for an offence of consuming methamphetamine, under s 8(b)(ii), punishable under s 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed); and one charge, for an offence of driving without a valid licence, under s 35(1), punishable under s 131(2) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed).

The respondent also consented to having three other charges under s 170 of the Penal Code and one charge under s 96(1) of the Road Traffic Act, of taking a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent, taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing. All the offences took place in November and December 2010. The respondent was 24 years old at that time. He had committed three prior offences, and was convicted for these on 14 March 2007. These offences were for: driving in breach of a condition of a provisional driving license, under s 36(5) of the Road Traffic Act; using indecent, threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards a public servant, under s 13D(1)(a) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Cap 184, 1997 Rev Ed); and using a motor vehicle without insuring against third party risk, punishable under s 3(2) of the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Rev Ed). For the three offences, he faced a total fine of $2,500 and 12 months’ disqualification from driving all classes of motor vehicles.

After the respondent pleaded guilty on 6 June 2012, in submissions as to sentence, both parties disagreed as to the extent of the involvement of the respondent’s Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”) in his criminality. The district judge called for a probation report, and adjourned the matter to 11 July 2012. At the hearing on 11 July 2012, counsel for the respondent sought a further adjournment to obtain forensic evaluation reports from Dr Saluja Bharat, a consultant for the General and Forensic Psychiatry department at the Institute of Mental Health (“IMH”). The adjournment was granted. At the next hearing on 5 December 2012, a further adjournment was granted for a further report, as well as for parties to address the court on the significant delay in the case. Parties appeared before the judge on 30 May 2013. The judge mentioned that further clarifications were needed from Dr Saluja. The matter was adjourned to 15 July 2013. On 15 July 2013, the probation officer was examined in court. On 24 September 2013, a Newton hearing was held in regard to Dr Saluja’s reports, as the prosecution was dissatisfied with them and the clarifications sought by the judge on 30 May 2013 were not forthcoming. During the Newton hearing, Dr Saluja was examined in court.

Having had the benefit of the Newton hearing, the probation report, the various reports from Dr Saluja and other psychiatrists, and examination of Dr Saluja and the probation officer, the district judge came to his decision of an order of probation on 24 October 2013. The district judge ordered the respondent to undergo a total of 24 months’ supervised probation, and to: attend regular treatment for his ADHD; adhere to the medication regime as prescribed by his psychiatrist; undergo random urine tests. The district judge also ordered that the respondent’s parents were to place a bond of $5,000 to ensure the respondent’s good behaviour during the period of probation. The prosecution appealed to this court, arguing that a custodial term and a disqualification order should be meted....