Public Prosecutor v Loo Kun Long

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 11 October 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] SGHC 235
• Docket Number: Criminal Revision No 13 of 2002
• Date: 11 October 2002
• Year: 2002
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Hui Choon Kuen (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Citation: [2002] SGHC 235
• Defendant Counsel: Respondent in person
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Construction of statute,Statutory Interpretation,Interpretation act,Interaction of ss 9A(1) and 41 Interpretation Act,Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 1997 Rev Ed) s 9A(1), (2)(b), (3)(d),Whether a minimum fine of $1,000 must be imposed,Interpretation of phrase "shall be liable...to a fine of $1,000" in s 30(2)(a) Films Act (Cap 107, 1998 Rev Ed),Precedence of s 9A(1) Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 1997 Rev Ed),Sentencing,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Purposive approach,Interaction of sections,Use of relevant debates in Parliament

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

Introduction

This was a petition by the public prosecutor for the criminal revision of the decision of district judge See Kee Oon in MAC 4000/02. The accused, Loo Kun Long (‘Loo’), pleaded guilty to the charge of knowingly being in possession of three obscene films, contrary to s 30(2)(a) of the Films Act (Cap 107, 1998 ed)(‘the Act’). The district judge convicted Loo of that charge and imposed on him a fine of $500 per film, i.e. $1,500 or 15 days imprisonment in default. Loo was also convicted and sentenced on two other charges, but those charges were irrelevant for the purposes of this criminal revision.

2 The only issue before me was whether the fine imposed by the district judge, pursuant to s 30(2)(a), was wrong in law and should be quashed by an exercise of my powers of criminal revision.

The decision below

3 Section 30 reads:

30(1) – Any person who has in his possession any obscene film shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of not less than $500 for each such film he had in his possession (but not to exceed in the aggregate $20,000) or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.

30(2) Any person who has in his possession any obscene film knowing or having reasonable cause to believe the film to be obscene shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction -

(a) to a fine of $1,000 for each such film in his possession (but not to exceed in the aggregate $40,000) or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both;

(b) in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine of not less than $2,000 for each such film in his possession (but not to exceed in the aggregate $80,000) or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both. [emphasis added]

4 There are three possible interpretations of the phrase "shall be liable … to a fine of $1,000 for each such film" in s 30(2)(a). First, a ‘fixed quantum’ of $1,000 must be imposed. Secondly, the maximum fine which may be imposed is $1,000 and thirdly, the minimum fined which must be imposed is $1,000. In imposing a fine of $500 per film on Loo, the district judge interpreted the phrase to mean that he had a discretion to impose a maximum fine of $1,000 per film, i.e. the second possible interpretation.

5 The district judge rejected the first possible interpretation, i.e. that s 30(2)(a) prescribes a fixed quantum of $1,000. He found that there was no compelling reason for Parliament to remove the court’s discretion entirely only for the first offence of knowingly possessing obscene films when it clearly allowed the courts a discretion in sentencing all the other offences in the Act. In particular, s 30(2)(b) confers a discretion on the courts in respect of sentencing repeat offenders of the same offence of knowingly possessing obscene films as it expressly stipulates a mandatory minimum fine of $2,000, subject to an aggregate of $80,000. There should be no reason why the court should have a discretion in imposing a sentence for repeat offenders, but not first time offenders. Reading s 30(2)(a) literally would lead to absurdity for another reason. Under s 30(1), if a person is convicted of a strict liability offence of possession of an obscene film, the court has the power to impose a fine of at least $500 per film but not exceeding $20,000 in aggregate. It would be absurd if the court must impose a fixed fine of $1,000 for the offence of knowingly possessing an obscene film while it retains the discretion to impose a fine of more than $1,000 for the lesser offence of mere possession of obscene films.

6 As between the second interpretation, i.e. that the court has the discretion to impose a maximum fine of $1,000, and the third interpretation, i.e. that the court has the discretion to impose a minimum fine of $1,000, the district judge initially chose the second interpretation. He explained that he was influenced by the fact that, prima facie, the expression "shall be liable" does not connote any specific mandatory sentence, much less any mandatory minimum sentence. He relied on the decisions of the High Court in PP v Lee Soon...