Public Prosecutor v Lim Niah Liang

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 14 November 1996
• Date: 14 November 1996
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 230 of 1996
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Public Prosecutor

Plaintiff

and

Lim Niah Liang

Defendant

[1996] SGHC 265

Yong Pung How CJ

Magistrate's Appeal No 230 of 1996

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Sentencing–Forms of punishment–Corrective work orders–Littering–Court's discretion in imposing corrective work order –Whether recalcitrant offender–Whether evidence of similar compounded offence could be relied upon to impose corrective work order–Sections 18 (2) and 21A Environmental Public Health Act (Cap 95, 1988 Rev Ed)–Words and Phrases–“Recalcitrant”–Section 21A (1) Environmental Public Health Act (Cap 95, 1988 Rev Ed)

The respondent, Lim, pleaded guilty to throwing a cigarette butt into a roadside drain, contrary to s 18 (2) of the Environmental Public Health Act (Cap 95, 1988 Rev Ed) (“the Act”). The Prosecution applied to the court to impose a corrective work order on him pursuant to s 21A (1) of the Act. The Prosecution pointed out that Lim had compounded a similar offence, committed on 6 October 1992, on 20 January 1993, and was a “repeat offender”. However, the court took the view that the Prosecution had failed to discharge its burden to show that a corrective work order should be imposed, and that Lim could neither be characterised as a “recalcitrant” nor a “repeat” offender. A fine of $300 was imposed on Lim. The Prosecution appealed.

Held, allowing the appeal:

(1) Whether a corrective work order should be imposed was a matter for the court to determine in the exercise of its discretion. It would be erroneous to suggest that the Prosecution had to discharge a burden of satisfying the court beyond reasonable doubt that a corrective work order would be expedient for Lim's reformation and the protection of the environment and the environmental public health: at [13].

(2) Evidence of previous convictions was not a precondition for the imposition of a corrective work order. The implementation of s 21A (1) of the Act depended either on evidence of commission of previous similar offences, or on evidence that a serious littering offence had been committed. The former type of evidence would demonstrate whether a person was a recalcitrant offender: at [19].

(3) To show that an offender was “recalcitrant” for the purpose of imposing a corrective work order, it would be sufficient to show that he had previously committed the same offence on at least one occasion. He need not have been convicted of the offence. As such, evidence of a compounded offence could be relied upon for the specific purpose of imposing a corrective work order: at [21].

(4) Despite having been permitted once to compound a similar offence four years ago, Lim had obstinately chosen to defy or ignore widespread calls for a heightened sense of graciousness and civic-consciousness in society. He could be properly termed a “recalcitrant offender” and a corrective work order would be an appropriate form of punishment: at [24].

(5) The more callous or cavalier the offender in his act of littering, the more culpable he would be. Together with factors such as the number of previous offences and the seriousness of the littering offence, this would be relevant in determining the length of time to which he would be ordered to perform a corrective work order. In this case a corrective work order for a duration of two hours would be appropriate for Lim: at [27] and [28].

[Observation: What constituted “serious” or “minor” littering appeared to be the size of the littering problem. Littering which involved the likelihood of serious hygiene, sanitary or disposal problems was apt to be considered “serious” littering: at [26].]

Lim Chor Pee, Re [1990] 2 SLR (R) 117; [1990] SLR 809 (refd)

PP v Yong Heng Yew [1996] 3 SLR (R) 22; [1996] 3 SLR 566 (folld)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 199 (4)

Environmental Public Health Act (Cap 95, 1988 Rev Ed) ss 18 (2), 21A, 21A (1) (consd);ss 18 (1), 21 (1), 21A (4), 21A (5)

Income Tax Act (Cap 141, 1970 Rev Ed)

Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1985 Rev Ed) s 80

Malcolm B H Tan (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the appellant

Joseph Liow (Derrick Ravi & Partners) for the respondent.

Yong Pung How CJ

1 On 30 July 1996, the respondent pleaded guilty in the Subordinate Courts to one charge of throwing a cigarette butt into a roadside drain at Portchester Avenue. This was an offence contrary to s 18 (2) and punishable under s 21 (1) of the Environmental Public Health Act (Cap 95, 1988 Ed) (“EPHA”).

2 The statement of facts tendered by the Prosecution was admitted by the respondent without qualification. It disclosed that on 18 May 1996 at about 10.22am, Environmental Health Officer M Supramaniam, who was performing his anti-littering rounds at Portchester Avenue, had seen the respondent throw the cigarette butt into the drain. He waited for about one minute to see whether the respondent would pick up the cigarette butt. When the respondent did not do so, M Supramaniam approached him, identified himself and explained the nature of the offence. He then issued the respondent a notice to attend court.

3 Upon the respondent's conviction on his plea of guilt in Court 13N of the Subordinate Courts, the Prosecution applied to the court pursuant to s 21A (1) of the EPHA to impose a corrective work order on him. Section 21A (1) provides:

Where a person who is 16 years of age or above is convicted of an offence under section 18 or 20, and if the Court by or before which he is convicted is satisfied that it is expedient with a view to his reformation and the protection of the environment and environmental public health that he should be required to perform unpaid...