Public Prosecutor v Liu Aik Kang

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Prem Raj Prabakaran
• Judgment Date: 14 January 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] SGDC 8
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Arrest Case Nos: 921152 of 2018 and 928563-928565 of 2018, Magistrate’s Appeal No: 9344/2018/01
• Published date: 28 February 2019
• Year: 2019
• Hearing Date: 31 October 2018,29 November 2018
• Plaintiff Counsel: Foo Shi Hao (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Marjorie Kong Xiwen (Criminal Legal Aid Scheme, The Law Society of Singapore)
• Citation: [2019] SGDC 8

District Judge Prem Raj Prabakaran: Introduction

In the early morning of 16 May 2018, Liu Aik Kang and his cousin entered an unlocked flat¹ and stole items worth at least $9,600 from three victims.² His cousin knew the flat was usually not locked, and had enlisted him to commit the theft.³ Liu surrendered to the police eight days later⁴, after learning there was footage of them entering and leaving the flat.⁵ He returned a wallet, worth $1,100, after his surrender⁶. The remaining items, worth at least $8,500, have not been returned as they had been sold.⁷ Liu’s share of the sales proceeds was $600.

Five weeks later, Liu joined his cousin and another to cheat a commercial sex worker by impersonating police officers. They targeted such a victim as they thought she would not report them to the police. The group made off with $15,600 (in cash and property), but about 20% was recovered that same day.⁸ Liu was on bail when he committed this second offence.⁹ He received $5,000, about a third of the loot.

Liu was 24 years old¹⁰ when he committed both offences. He was neither the instigator nor the ringleader. He was also the youngest among the accused persons¹¹, and the first to plead guilty.

Four charges against the accused

Liu was charged with: three counts of theft in a dwelling house (“theft in dwelling”) with common intention, offences punishable under s 380, read with s 34, of the Penal Code (“the Code”);¹² and one count of cheating by personation with common intention, an offence punishable under s 419, read with s 34, of the Code.

All three theft in dwelling charges related to offences committed during a single transaction. They involved theft on the same occasion, from those staying in the flat.¹³

The Prosecution proceeded on two charges: one charge of theft in dwelling and the charge of cheating by personation. Liu pleaded guilty. He consented to the remaining two charges of theft in dwelling being considered for sentencing.

Three theft-in-dwelling charges

Apart from the victims’ names as well as the items stolen and their values, all three theft in dwelling charges were worded in similar terms:

…that you, on the 16th day of May 2018, between 1am and 2am, at 200 Jalan Sultan #14-09, Singapore, a building used as a human dwelling, together with Hu Zhihao¹⁴, and in furtherance of the common intention of you both, did commit theft of [description of item(s) and value of item(s)] in the possession of one [name of victim], and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 380 read with Section 34 of the [Code].

The Prosecution proceeded on the charge involving the largest value of property stolen (viz, $8,000). I will refer to this charge as the “Theft Charge”.

The distinguishing particulars in the charges are set out below:

Victim	Item(s) stolen	Total value	Remarks
Huynh Duc Tien	MacBook (laptop)	$8,000	Proceeded charge
Canon camera and charger
Camera lens (x3)
Camera flash (x2)
Camera bag
Camera commander
Maneenate Watchari	Louis Vuitton wallet, valued at $1,10015	$1,600	Charges considered in sentencing
Cash of $500
Maekong Prangthip	iPad mini	Unknown

Cheating by personation charge

I will refer to the charge for cheating by personation as the “Personation Charge”. This read as follows:

…that you, on the 23rd day of June 2018, at or about 11.40 pm, at No 238 Balestier Road #05-01, Urban Heritage Condominium, Singapore, together with Hu Zhihao and Tan Shi Feng, and in furtherance of the common intention of all of you, did represent that you were all police officers when you were not and so deceive one Liang Shiyue into believing that you were a police officer, and by such manner of deception, intentionally induced the said Liang Shiyue to do an act, to wit, permit you and your accomplices to search her apartment at No 238 Balestier Road #05-01, Urban Heritage Condominium, and remove from her possession SGD$15,000 in cash and one Apple iPhone 6 valued at SGD$600 belonging to her, which she would not have done had she not been so deceived, and which caused damage to Liang Shiyue, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 419 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code…

[emphasis added]

Sentences imposed

The parties differed marginally in their submissions on the sentence to be imposed for the Theft Charge. The Prosecution sought 5 to 6 months’ imprisonment (viz, at least 5 months’ imprisonment). The Defence proposed no longer than 4 months’ imprisonment.

The parties differed significantly, however, in their submissions on the Personation Charge. The Prosecution sought 12 to 14 months’ imprisonment (viz, at least 12 months’ imprisonment). The Defence proposed no longer than 4 months’ imprisonment.

The parties did, however, agree that the sentences should run consecutively. This reflected the general rule of consecutive sentences for unrelated offences, discussed in PP v Raveen Balakrishnan¹⁶.

I was in large agreement with the Prosecution’s submissions on the aggravating features of both offences. A closer review of the authorities cited did not, however, support the sentences it was seeking. The Prosecution was also not able to distinguish, persuasively, some of these authorities. I therefore differed on the calibration of the sentences, and imposed the following sentences instead:

Charge	Sentence imposed
Theft Charge	4 months’ and 2 weeks’ imprisonment (consecutive)
Personation Charge	10 months’ imprisonment (consecutive)
	Total: 14 months’ and 2 weeks’ imprisonment

The sentences were ordered to run consecutively. The total sentence was hence 14 months’ and 2 weeks’ imprisonment. This was backdated to 26 June 2018, the date Liu was remanded. Liu is currently serving sentence.

The sentences imposed did not differ greatly from those the Prosecution sought, as shown in the following table:

Charge	Prosecution	Imposed	Remarks
Theft Charge	At least 5 months’ imprisonment	4 months’ and 2 weeks’ imprisonment	2 weeks less (or 10% lower) than that sought by the Prosecution
Personation Charge	At least 12 months’ imprisonment	10 months’ imprisonment	2 months less (or 16.7% lower) than that sought by the Prosecution

The total sentence of 14 months’ and 2 weeks’ imprisonment was 2 months and 2 weeks less (or less than 15% lower) than the minimum sentence of 17 months’ imprisonment the Prosecution sought.

A sentence is manifestly inadequate if it requires “substantial alterations rather than minute corrections to remedy the injustice”.¹⁷ The sentences imposed cannot be said to be manifestly inadequate. The Prosecution has, however, appealed against the sentences imposed. These are my grounds of decision.

Statement of Facts

The facts underlying the proceeded charges were set out in the Statement of Facts, which Liu admitted to without qualification.

Theft in dwelling on 16 May 2018¹⁸

The victim was Huynh Duc Tien (“Huynh”), a 25-year-old Vietnamese national. He was a performing artiste at Club V Karaoke Pub (“the Pub”), and stayed in a flat at 200 Jalan Sultan #14-09 (“the Flat”).

The co-accused was Hu Zhihao, a 26-year-old Singaporean. Hu, Liu’s cousin, was a frequent patron of the Pub. From his interactions with a Pub employee who stayed in the Flat¹⁹, Hu learnt that the Flat was usually not locked.

On or before 16 May 2018, Hu asked Liu to join him in stealing items from the Flat, which Hu knew would not be locked. Liu agreed. Hu and Liu thereby formed a common intention to commit theft from the Flat. In furtherance of this common intention, Hu and Liu proceeded to the Flat on 16 May 2018 between 1:00am and 2:00am. After entering the Flat through its unlocked door, they checked to ensure nobody was inside. They then searched for items to steal, and took various items belonging to three victims.²⁰ The following items in Huynh’s possession were taken:

S/No	Item	Number stolen
1	MacBook (laptop)	1
2	Canon camera and charger	1 (of each)
3	Camera lens	3
4	Camera flash	2
5	Camera bag	1
6	Camera commander	1

These items had a total value of $8,000.²¹ Hu and Liu left the Flat after taking them. They sold the items for $1,300, and spilt the proceeds. Liu received at least $600.

On 18 May 2018, Liu was informed by Hu that a bouncer from the Pub had obtained Closed Circuit Television (“CCTV”) footage of them entering and leaving the Flat. Liu therefore decided to surrender to the police on 24 May 2018. He was released on police bail that same day.

The following items were seized from the Ang Mo Kio branch of Cash Converters (“Cash Converters”), where Hu and Liu sold them:

S/No	Item	Number seized
1	Canon camera and charger	1 (of each)
2	Camera lens	1
3	Camera flash	2

Cash Converters values these items at $1,798, and maintains its claim to them. No restitution has been made.

Cheating by personation on 23 June 2018²²

The victim is Liang Shiyue, a 31-year-old Chinese national (“Liang”). She provided illegal massage and sexual services, and advertised these online. The co-accused persons are Hu and Tan Shi Feng, a 29-year-old Singaporean (“Tan”).

Tan was a regular serviceman with the Republic of Singapore Navy. Hu was formerly a serviceman. Tan and Hu were friends who met in the Navy. Liu was introduced to Tan by Hu.

Sometime in early June 2018, while Liu was still on police bail, Tan, Hu, and Liu (collectively, “the accused persons” or “the group”) discussed a plan to cheat a commercial sex worker by impersonating police officers. They wanted to target...