Public Prosecutor v Loqmanul Hakim bin Buang

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: V K Rajah JA
• Judgment Date: 24 September 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] SGHC 159
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 12 of 2007
• Date: 24 September 2007
• Year: 2007
• Published date: 09 January 2008
• Plaintiff Counsel: Vincent Leow (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Citation: [2007] SGHC 159
• Defendant Counsel: The respondent in person
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Rationale for imposing more severe sentence for offence committed whilst on bail,Sentencing,Whether weight should be accorded to fact that accused committed offence while in uniform and carrying lethal weapon,Relevance of general deterrence,Whether principle of specific deterrence relevant in sentencing,Principles,Retribution in sentencing,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Theft committed by CISCO police officer

24 September 2007

V K Rajah JA:

Background

1 Law enforcement and security agencies rightly receive a large measure of credit for the low crime rate that Singapore presently enjoys. Affirmation of positive international recognition has once again been accorded to Singapore’s law enforcement agencies in the recent Political & Economic Risk Consultancy Ltd (“PERC”), Comparative Country Risk Report 2007 (February 2007) (“PERC Report”), at p 21, acknowledging Singapore as having the lowest rate of crime threats against persons and property in the Asia-Pacific region.

2 Underlying such a positive assessment is the prevalent belief and expectation that those responsible for security enforcement in Singapore are disciplined, knowledgeable and take their mission of upholding the law conscientiously. Indeed, the actuality of such a positive perception of the domestic law enforcement agencies has been also manifested in the same PERC Report ([1] supra) where the Singapore Police Force is described as being “no-nonsense” (at p 22) and its officers, found to be “well trained, very professional and well respected by the local population” [emphasis added] (at p 51).

3 Needless to say, this hard won reputation of law enforcement and security agencies cannot be taken for granted. It has to be jealously protected. If and when their personnel break the law, they must be punished appropriately – in particular, in cases where such personnel abuse the colour of their office, severe punishment may be necessary so as to adequately reflect the damage that may have been inflicted and/or sustained to the standing of all other law enforcement personnel and the institutions they represent. The instant case represents one of those unhappy instances.

4 This matter involves certain serious and rather inexplicable indiscretions by an officer formerly employed by Certis CISCO Security Pte Ltd (formerly known as CISCO Security Pte Ltd) (“CISCO”). CISCO, the largest auxiliary police force in Singapore, is one of the three commercial security companies that are authorised to provide armed security officers. Its officers are licensed to carry arms if they are necessary for discharge of their duties. CISCO asserts in its website that their auxiliary police services “protect … assets and premises from danger and threats” and their presence “deter crimes from occurring and keep lives and assets safe”. (see accessed on 24 September 2007). Indeed, I should stress that although CISCO is presently not technically part of the Singapore Police Force, any suggestion that their delinquent officers should be treated less severely than police officers from the Singapore Police Force would not be countenanced, given their generally parallel duties: indeed, pursuant to s 86(1) of the Police Force Act (Cap 235, 2006 Rev Ed), the duties of auxiliary officers (such as those from CISCO) in protecting commercial organisations appear to be broadly similar to the conventional duties that were originally undertaken directly by the police officers from the Singapore Police Force. It would also be important to point out that unlike most other private security firms, CISCO auxiliary police officers wear uniforms that look similar to those worn by regular police officers even though the insignia is now different. Nonetheless, for completeness sake, I should mention that there is an appreciable distinction between the two, in that “the powers of a police officer may only be exercised by an auxiliary police officer when he is on official duty in the course of performing his duties”: see Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Auxiliary Police Officers (Cap 235, N 6, 2006 Rev Ed). It is apposite to reproduce in full the entirety of this declaration:

The Commissioner of Police, has conferred on every auxiliary police officer appointed under section 92 (1) or (2) of the Police Force Act all the powers, privileges and immunities of a police officer of corresponding rank, subject to the following limitations:

(a) an auxiliary police officer shall not have the powers of investigation of a police officer under Part V of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 68);

(b) the powers of a police officer may only be exercised by an auxiliary police officer when he is on official duty and in the course of performing his duties; and

(c) an auxiliary police officer shall not exercise any powers of a police officer whilst he is undergoing the Auxiliary Police Officer Basic Course.

[emphasis added]

The facts

5 The respondent, Loqmanul Hakim bin Buang (“the accused”) pleaded guilty to three separate charges of theft under s 380 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the Penal Code”) that were committed on three separate occasions between 27 October 2006 and 14 November 2006. The district judge sentenced the accused to ten weeks’ imprisonment in respect of the first charge, four weeks’ imprisonment in respect of the second charge and two weeks’ imprisonment in respect of the third, with the two lengthier sentences being ordered to run consecutively. The Public Prosecutor (“the Prosecution”) appealed against the sentences that were imposed by the district court on the ground that they were manifestly inadequate.

6 I should mention at this juncture that although the Prosecution’s appeal was, technically speaking, in respect of the global sentence (of fourteen weeks’ imprisonment) that had been pronounced by the district judge, its principal complaint was in relation to the sentence given in relation to the first charge (ie, the third theft). At the conclusion of the hearing, I allowed the Prosecution’s appeal and increased the sentence in respect of the first charge to eighteen months’ imprisonment and ordered it to run consecutively to the third charge, with the sentence in respect of the second charge to run concurrently. The accused would therefore have to serve a cumulative sentence of imprisonment of 18 months and two weeks, in substitution of the original term of fourteen weeks. I now set out the reasons for my decision in full.

7 The facts that gave rise to this appeal are uncontroversial. The accused is a 23-year-old male who was, at all material times, a CISCO auxiliary police officer holding the rank of police constable. On 27 October 2006, the accused entered Sheng Siong Supermarket Pte Ltd at Yuan Ching Road (“the Yuan Ching Road Supermarket”) and openly removed two boxes, each containing a portable DVD player worth some $249. Even though his actions were captured on the CCTV surveillance cameras, the accused was able to leave the supermarket without paying for the two items. He later proceeded to sell these items at the Sungei Road flea market. This particular incident formed the subject matter of the third charge against the accused, for which the accused was sentenced by the district judge to two weeks’ imprisonment.

8 Perhaps emboldened by his earlier success, on 30 October 2006, the accused, accompanied by an accomplice, one Mohammad Nurzaman bin Mansor, proceeded to another Sheng Siong supermarket outlet, this time the branch located at Ten Mile Junction. There, he attempted to remove a television set valued at $1,399 without effecting payment. Unlike the previous occasion, however, this theft did not go unnoticed. Confronted by a store supervisor just outside the supermarket, the accused and his accomplice promptly abandoned the television set and fled on his motorcycle. The accused was eventually tracked down by the police and apprehended on 6 November 2006. After preliminary investigations had been completed that very same day, the accused was released on station bail. This incident formed the subject matter of the second charge against the accused, for which he received a sentence of four weeks’ imprisonment.

9 One would have thought that after being caught red-handed in the commission of the theft on 30 October 2006, and having been placed on bail, the accused would have been concerned about the penal consequences of his conduct and be in a contrite frame of mind. Instead, on 14 November 2006, the accused brazenly decided to commit yet another theft. On that day, the accused was supposed to report for duty at 6.30am at the CISCO Auxiliary Police Jurong Division, but he reported for work at about 9.00 am instead, as he had initially assumed that it was his day off. Upon arrival at the CISCO Auxiliary Police Jurong Division, in accordance with the standard practice for deployment, the accused changed into his full CISCO gear and drew his arms and equipment, which included a revolver, bullets and a nightstick.

10 At about 10.00am, the accused was informed that he would be deployed at the POSB Branch in Clementi (“POSB Branch”). About an hour later, during the ride to the POSB Branch, the accused asked the driver to drop him off, close to the Yuan Ching Road Supermarket, on the pretext that he wanted to purchase some take-away food at a nearby food centre.

11 Once in the proximity of the Yuan Ching Road Supermarket, at or about 11.15am, the accused, clad in full CISCO official gear, proceeded to its electrical section. There he removed three DVD players, cumulatively valued at about $201. The accused then attempted to leave the supermarket with these unpaid items through the rear exit meant for the delivery of goods. An assistant supervisor (“the supervisor”) of the supermarket observed the accused leaving with the items and demanded that he immediately stop. The accused ignored him and proceeded to leave the premises. The supervisor eventually caught up with the accused and demanded the production of the payment receipt. Refusing to accede to the request, the accused emphasised that he was “a police officer”. When he was requested to accompany the supervisor to the supermarket’s office, the accused became uncooperative and struggled in an unsuccessful attempt to escape. Two other staff members then rushed to assist the supervisor in subduing the accused....