Public Prosecutor v Mahat bin Salim

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 28 April 2005
• Neutral Citation: [2005] SGHC 83
• Docket Number: Criminal Revision No 6 of 2005
• Date: 28 April 2005
• Published date: 06 May 2005
• Year: 2005
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ravneet Kaur (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Citation: [2005] SGHC 83
• Defendant Counsel: The respondent in person
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Section 12(1) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed),Section 268 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed), s 23 Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed),Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Corrective training,Whether minimum period of corrective training sufficient and appropriate,Whether court having power to order caning or fine in addition to sentence of corrective training,Whether High Court should exercise revisionary powers to set aside sentence for reformative training and order sentence for corrective training,Governing principles,Revision of proceedings,Forms of punishment,Sentencing,Relevant considerations to be taken into account in determining length of corrective training

28 April 2005

Yong Pung How CJ:

1 The respondent pleaded guilty to three charges under ss 394, 356 and 380 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) and was sentenced by the district judge to reformative training. Shortly afterwards, the district judge was alerted to the fact that the respondent had already exceeded the prescribed maximum age for which reformative training was appropriate.

2 The district judge thus filed the present petition urging this court to exercise its revisionary powers under s 268 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) (“CPC”) to order that the sentence imposed be replaced with one that was fitting in the circumstances. The Prosecution supported this application by the district judge and argued for a corrective training sentence to be imposed.

3 After careful consideration of the facts and law, I allowed the petition and set aside the sentence of reformative training. I ordered in place of it a sentence of five years of corrective training and 12 strokes of the cane. I now give my reasons.

The facts

4 The respondent pleaded guilty to the following charges under the Penal Code:

(a) one charge of voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery under s 394;

(b) one charge of snatch theft under s 356; and

(c) one charge of theft in dwelling under s 380.

5 These charges related to different victims. The facts relating to the charge under s 394 are as follows: on 24 January 2005 at about 7.30pm, the respondent followed the victim into the lift of a block of flats. The respondent suddenly grabbed the victim’s handphone valued at $498 and a struggle ensued. When the lift door opened, the respondent bit the victim on her left palm, snatched the handphone from her and fled. A few days later, he tried to dispose of the stolen property at a handphone shop in the neighbourhood. However, he was arrested before he could do so.

6 As for the charge under s 356, the facts are that on 4 January 2005 at about 1.40am, the victim was approached by the respondent who asked her for loose change. The respondent observed that the victim had a Personal Digital Assistant handphone in her waist-pouch. When the victim replied that she had no loose change, the accused walked away. Shortly afterwards, when the victim was walking towards a private estate, the victim approached her again and this time exerted criminal force on her by snatching the handphone valued at $600 from her pouch. The accused fled whilst the victim shouted for help. Her cries alerted a passer-by who informed the police. The accused has since sold the handphone and used the proceeds to pay for his personal expenses.

7 Finally, in relation to the third charge under s 380, the facts are that on 5 January 2005 at about 3.45pm, the accused was walking along a row of shops when he noticed that there was no one manning a particular unit. He entered the shop, opened one of the unlocked drawers behind the counter and stole $1,650 in cash and one senior citizen EZ-link card. The shop owner subsequently lodged a police report. The accused has since spent the money on a shopping spree.

8 The respondent also admitted to two further charges for theft and for voluntarily assisting in disposing of stolen property under ss 379 and 414 of the Penal Code respectively, and consented to having these charges taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing. These two offences were also committed in the month of January 2005.

The petition

9 On 25 February 2005, the respondent, who was born on 26 December 1983, pleaded guilty to all three charges before the district judge. After calling for a pre-sentencing report, which indicated that the respondent was suitable to undergo reformative training, the district judge sentenced him to reformative training on 18 March 2005. However, on 24 March 2005, the district judge was alerted to the fact that the accused was already 21 years and 2 months old on the date of his conviction, and that the sentence of reformative training was thus wrong in law. According to s 13(1)(a) of the CPC, only offenders under the age of 21 on the date of their conviction can be sentenced to reformative training.

The Prosecution’s case

10 The Prosecution supported the district judge’s application for criminal revision of the sentence pursuant to the High Court’s exercise of its revisionary powers. The Prosecution further recommended that the sentence of corrective training be ordered in lieu of any sentence of imprisonment. However, it was silent on whether other forms of punishment, such as caning or fine, as provided for under the CPC, should be ordered.

The exercise of revisionary powers

11 The relevant statutory provisions dealing with the revisionary powers of the High Court are s 23 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) and s 268 of the CPC. It is trite law that the revisionary jurisdiction and powers of the High Court must be exercised judiciously. There must be some form of serious injustice, that is, there must be something palpably wrong in the decision that strikes at its basis as an exercise of judicial power by the court below, which warrants the exercise of the revisionary powers: Ang Poh Chuan v PP [1996] 1 SLR 326; Ngian Chin Boon v PP [1999] 1 SLR 119; PP v Mohamed Noor bin Abdul Majeed [2000] 3 SLR 17; Koh Thian Huat v PP [2002] 3 SLR 28.

12 It is clear that the sentence of reformative training is wrong in law as the respondent was beyond the prescribed maximum age for reformative training on the date of his conviction. In view of this obvious error, there is no reason not to allow this petition. Accordingly, the sentence of reformative training will be set aside. I shall now turn to the issue of the appropriate sentence to be passed in place of reformative training.

The appropriate sentence

Corrective training

13 The local authorities have established that the principal aim of corrective training is to rehabilitate the offender who has a propensity to lead a criminal life. More specifically, it is to turn him away from the easy allure of crime by putting him through a regime of discipline and by teaching him certain work skills. It therefore seeks to reduce recidivism: Kua Hoon Chua v PP [1995] 2 SLR 386 followed in G Ravichander v PP [2002] 4 SLR 587 and PP v Wong Wing Hung [1999] 4 SLR 329. In view of the respondent’s fairly long list of antecedents and his young age, I found it necessary and appropriate for the respondent to undergo training of a corrective character for a substantial period of time with a view to his reformation and the prevention of crime.

14 I arrived at this decision after taking into account several factors. First, the respondent’s criminal record displayed his unfortunate proclivities towards committing crimes, especially property-related offences. When he had barely turned 15, the accused started his criminal career when he was convicted for snatch theft under s 356 of the Penal Code and placed on probation. At that time, he was also ordered to reside in a juvenile home for two years. When he was 16, he was convicted of theft in dwelling under s 380 of the Penal Code and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment. At 19, he was found guilty of having possession of housebreaking elements and/or offensive weapons and for that served three months in jail. His latest conviction was in April 2004, where he, at 20 years of age, was convicted of theft under s 379 of the Penal Code and, this time, was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. Barely a few months after being released from prison at the close of 2004, the respondent returned to his old ways and in January 2005 committed a total of five offences, two of which were taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing. His previous jail sentences have thus proved to be of little deterrent effect.

15 Second, there is clearly a need to provide persons such as the respondent with sufficient time to reform their character before they are permitted to return to society. A sentence of imprisonment would simply be another vacation for him, judging from his criminal past. The respondent’s prior convictions on property-related offences demonstrate his apparent penchant for stealing in order to satisfy his material needs. A regimented environment instilling discipline and morally correct values would be more likely to reverse such criminal tendencies as soon as possible before they continue manifesting themselves.

16 Third, the respondent, at 21 years of age, is still very young and possesses no work skills, having dropped out of school after Primary Three. A normal jail sentence will not provide him with the necessary skills to earn a decent livelihood when he returns to society. One can imagine that when he is released from prison, he will continue to while away his time unproductively before he commits his next offence when he is in need of money. A longer jail sentence will be unlikely to carry the desired deterrent effect. On the contrary, if the respondent is given a minimum sentence of five years of corrective training, where he will be trained and reformed, he will only be 26 when he is released and will still have many years of his...