Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Noor bin Abdul Majeed

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 25 May 2000
• Date: 25 May 2000
• Docket Number: Criminal Revisions Nos 4 and 5 Magistrate's Appeal No 28 of 2000
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Public Prosecutor

Plaintiff

and

Mohamed Noor bin Abdul Majeed

Defendant

[2000] SGHC 93

Yong Pung How CJ

Criminal Revisions Nos 4 and 5 of 2000; Magistrate's Appeal No 28 of 2000

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Revision of proceedings–Criminal revision–Exercise of High Court revisionary jurisdiction and powers–Governing factors–Whether immaterial error in charge ground for revision–Whether order for concurrent sentences of reformative training ground for revision–Schedule D para 4 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)–Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Revision of proceedings–Whether order for concurrent sentences of reformative training ground for revision–Schedule D para 4 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)–Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Sentencing–Appeals–Whether sentence manifestly excessive–Sentence of reformative training for unlawful possession of another's identity card

The appellant was arrested and charged with an offence punishable under the National Registration Act (Cap 201, 1992 Rev Ed) for possessing another's identity card. At the time of his arrest, it was discovered that he had previously been convicted and sentenced to reformative training for other offences. He was detained in a reformative training centre (“RTC”) for about 34 months before being released into supervision. During his term of supervision, the appellant disobeyed instructions and an order of recall for further detention was issued against him. The appellant failed to return to the RTC and remained unlawfully at large until he was arrested for the current offence.

The appellant pleaded guilty to his charge. After taking into account his antecedents and mitigation plea, the trial judge sentenced him to reformative training. The trial judge ordered the current sentence of reformative training to commence on the same date as the appellant's existing term of reformative training as he felt bound by the earlier High Court decision, which held that consecutive terms of reformative training were not desirable.

The appellant appealed against his sentence. The trial judge filed the petition for Criminal Revision No 4 of 2000 after he discovered that there was an error in the statement of the charge. The Public Prosecutor brought Criminal Revision No 5 of 2000 on the basis that the trial judge's order for concurrent sentences of reformative training was inappropriate on the facts. The applications were heard together.

Held, allowing Criminal Revision No 5 of 2000 and dismissing Criminal Revision No 4 of 2000 and the appeal:

(1) The revisionary jurisdiction and powers of the High Court had to be exercised sparingly and only where there had been some form of serious injustice. It had to be shown that there was something palpably wrong in the decision that struck at its basis as an exercise of judicial power by the court below: at [8].

(2) The error in the charge was so minor it could be regarded as immaterial. The proposed amendment did not introduce a charge under a different provision and the prescribed punishment for the amended charge would have remained unchanged. As such, the proceedings below would have taken exactly the same course even if the charge had been correctly drafted in the first place. Since the appellant was not misled by the error and neither did the error occasion a failure of justice, there was no need to invoke the revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court. Accordingly, the petition under Criminal Revision No 4 of 2000 was dismissed: at [10].

(3) The detention and release of persons sentenced to reformative training was governed by Sched D to the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) (“CPC”). Due to the operation of para 4 of Sched D to the CPC, the problem of consecutive reformative training did not arise on the present facts. Applying the provision, the earlier sentence of reformative training ceased to have effect once the appellant was sentenced to further reformative training. Thus, there was only one sentence of reformative training, which was the current one being imposed: at [12], [15] and [16].

(4) The order for the sentence of reformative training to commence on the same date as the earlier term of reformative training effectively also meant that the appellant had already completed serving his sentence and would have to be released practically immediately. The order was obviously erroneous with an absurd result. Such circumstances therefore justified the exercise of the High Court's revisionary powers, which would include the power to alter the nature of the sentence. The petition under Criminal Revision No 5 of 2000 was thus allowed and the sentence was amended to commence on the date of sentencing: at [17] and [19].

(5) Taking into consideration the gravity of the offence as well as the appellant's antecedents, the sentence of reformative training was not manifestly excessive. The appellant had committed a serious offence, as evident from the fact that the offence was deemed a seizable one and had heavy punishment prescribed for it. The severe punishments underlied the Parliament's intention that offences relating to the unlawful use of Singapore identity cards had to be effectively dealt with to prevent their abuse and to ensure their security and integrity: at [22] and [23].

Ang Poh Chuan v PP [1995] 3 SLR (R) 929; [1996] 1 SLR 326 (folld)

Ng Kwok Fai v PP [1996] 1 SLR (R) 193; [1996] 1 SLR 568 (distd)

Ngian Chin Boon v PP [1998] 3 SLR (R) 655; [1999] 1 SLR 119 (folld)

PP v Koon Seng Construction Pte Ltd [1996] 1 SLR (R) 112; [1996] 1 SLR 573 (distd)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) Sched D para 4 (consd);ss 162, 256 (b) (ii), 268, 396

Destruction of Disease-Bearing Insects Act (Cap 79, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 6 (1), 25 (1)

National Registration Act (Cap 201, 1992 Rev Ed) ss 13 (2), 13 (2) (b)

Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 160, 379A, 457

Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) s 23

Daniel Yong (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the petitioner

Respondent in person.

Yong Pung How CJ

1 The appellant pleaded guilty in the Subordinate Courts to a charge under s 13 (2) (b) of the National...