Public Prosecutor v Mohammad Ridhwan Bin Abdul Rahman

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Soh Tze Bian
• Judgment Date: 12 March 2010
• Neutral Citation: [2010] SGDC 100
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2010
• Citation: [2010] SGDC 100
• Plaintiff Counsel: Assistant Public Prosecutor, Puvaneswari
• Defendant Counsel: Defence Counsel, Yeo Soon Keng
• Published date: 29 March 2010

12 March 2010

District Judge Soh Tze Bian:

The Charge and Sentence

1 This is an appeal against sentence filed by the accused on 11 March 2010. The accused, male 17 years of age, pleaded guilty to 7 proceeded charges (in DAC 57140/2009, DAC 58027/2009 & DAC 58973-77/2009) of robbery with common intention which he had committed with two other co-accused persons, one Mohammad Fareez Bin Rahmat, male/19 years old and one Khairus Sa'aban Bin Abdullah, male/16 years old. He consented to 7 other similar charges (in DAC 58028-32/2009 & DAC 58971-72/2009) to be taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing. Each of these 14 charges was an offence punishable under section 392 read with section 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) with imprisonment for a minimum term of 2 years and up to a maximum term of 10 years plus mandatory caning of not less than 6 strokes.

2 I sentenced the accused to undergo reformative training at a reformative training centre which would be for a period of not less than 18 months and not more than 3 years. The accused is presently serving his sentence.

Statement of Facts

3 The statement of facts, admitted by the accused without qualification, read as follows:

“The accused persons are:

Bl) Mohammad Ridhwan Bin Abdul Rahman, male/17 years old, NRIC SXXXXXXX-D.

B2) Khairus Sa'aban bin Abdullah, male/16 vears old. NRJC: SXXXXXXX-F.

B3) Mohammad Fareez bin Rahmat. Male/19 years old. NRIC: SXXXXXXX-H.

Facts relating to the 1^st and 2nd proceeded charges

2. The victims are:

V1) DIBA, male/14 years old.

V2) MMBAW, male/14 veans old

3. On 21st October 2009 at about 5.13 pm. both victims went to Sengkang NPC together to lodge a police report that they were robbed by 3 unknown male Malay subjects. The location of the incident was onboard SBS Bus 87 whilst travelling along Bedok North Avenue 1, Singapore.

4. Investigations revealed that on 21st October 2009 at about 1.40pm, the victims boarded SBS Bus 87 at Bedok Interchange. The victims sat on the rear left corner seat on the upper deck of the bus. Moments later, the accused persons also boarded the same bus and went up to the upper deck where the victims were. B1 Mohammad Ridhwan and B2 Khairus Sa'aban sat in front of the victims while B3 Mohammad Fareez sat next to V1. B3 Mohammad Fareez then took out a parang with a 45cm blade and placed it behind the neck of V1. The accused persons demanded from the victims their possessions and told them to look out for a female subject named "Farah" from the victims’ school. The accused persons also provided a contact number and address to the victims and told the victims to contact them if they locate the said ‘Farah’. The accused persons would only return the victims' possessions if they found 'Farah’.

5. Out of fear of instant hurt, the victims took out their possessions and passed these to the accused persons, The accused persons alighted from the bus at Hougang Interchange while the victims continued on the bus journey and reached Sengkang Interchange. Upon alighting from the bus. the victims decided to go to V2’s house. Along the way, they met V2’s parents and related the incident to them. The victims were then brought to Sengkang NPC where a police report was lodged.

6. The victims did not suffer any physical injuries.

7. The following items were taken from the victims:

V1:	a) Cash S$26 b) One Sony Ericsson W595 black handphone with earpiece valued at S$98/-, with a total value of S$124/-
V2:	a) One brown wallet brand ‘X’ zone valued at S$10/- b) One white maroon Nokia N95 handphone valued at S$280/- c) One white Sonv PSP game console valued at S$200/- d) Cash of S$6/- e) One photostated copy of a birth certificate bearing number: SXXXXXXXJ, with a total value of S$496/-.

8. Through follow-up investigations, the identities of the accused persons were established and they were subsequently arrested. Upon their arrest, the following items were recovered from their possession:

i) One white maroon Nokia N95 hand phone

ii) One brown wallet brand 'X’ zone valued at SS10/-

iii) One photo-stated copy of a birth certificate bearing number SXXXXXXXJ.

9. The accused persons admitted to committing robbery with common intention which is punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. Chapter 224.

Facts relating to the remaining 5 proceeded charges

10. The victims are:

V1) NSQ, male/15 years old.

V2) AABAA, male/15 years old

V3) SDBS, male/15years old.

V4) MZBVA, male/15 years old

V5) MJBJ, male/15 vears old.

11. On 20 October 2009 at about 11.44 a.m, the police received a ‘999' call with the following text message "MY SON JUST CAME BACK HOME AND TOLD ME HE WAS ROBBED NEAR THE COFFEESHOP THERE….” The location of the incident was at the void deck of Blk 298 Tampines Street 22, Singapore.

12. Investigations revealed that on 20 October 2009 at about 11.30 am, the victims went to the void deck of Blk 298 Tampines Street22 to chit-chat after school. While they were there, the accused persons approached them and asked them which gang they belonged to. The victims then told the accused persons that they did not belong to any gang.

13. Upon hearing this, the accused persons took out their parangs and pointed them at the victims. The accused persons told the victims to hand over their belongings or they would lose their lives. Out of fear of instant hurt, the victims took out their personal belongings and placed them on the table. The accused persons took away all the items and fled. The victims did not give chase as they feared of being hurt by the accused persons.

14. The following items were taken away from the victims:

V1)	a) One black Sony Ericsson handphone. b) Cash S$2 With a total value of S$2/-.
V2)	a) One black Sony Ericsson PSP game console b) Cash S$2 With a total value of S$2/-
V3)	a) One silver Sony Ericsson handphone b) Cash S$50/-. c) One red Sony Ericsson PSP game console With a total value of S$50/-.
V4)	a) Cash of S$2/-.
V5)	a) Cash of S$50/-. b) One red Nokia handphone With a total value of SS50/-.

15. Through follow-up investigations, the identities of the accused persons were established and they were subsequently arrested. Upon their arrest, one red Sony Ericsson PSP game console was recovered.

16. The accused persons admitted to committing robbery with common intention which is punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. Chapter 224.

17. The accused persons are charged for 7 offences each accordingly“. (emphasis mine)

Mitigation

4 The defence counsel for the accused had in his mitigation urged the Court to be lenient towards the accused who is 17 years old. He had a secondary one education and worked as an odd job worker. His mother works as a KFC cashier and his father is a delivery man and a part-time CISCO officer. After the reformative training report was called and read to him, the defence counsel informed the Court that the accused has requested to serve a normal sentence. The Court informed the accused that as the prescribed punishment for each of the robbery offences is imprisonment for a minimum term of 2 years and up to a maximum term of 10 years plus mandatory caning of not less than 6 strokes subject to a maximum of 24 strokes, the Court would not accede to his request for a normal sentence.

Prosecution’s submission

5 The prosecution urged the Court to call for a report on the accused’s physical and mental condition and his suitability for reformative training and to sentence the accused to reformative training.

Reformative training report

6 As the accused had previously been granted 21 months’ supervised probation on 29 May 2009 for 8 counts of theft and 1 count of dishonest misappropriation of property, I decided not to call for a probation report since the accused has flouted with impunity the conditions imposed by the probation order: see Siauw Yin Hee v PP [1994] 3 SLR(R) 1036 at [7]. However, as the dominant consideration in sentencing youthful offenders is rehabilitation (see PP v Mok Ping Wuen Maurice [1999] 1 SLR 138 at [21] and Wong Shan Shan v PP [2008] SGHC 49 at [21]) , I decided to call for a pre-sentence report on the accused to determine his suitability for reformative training.

7 The reformative training report prepared by a Prisons Counsellor had certified the accused to be medically and physically fit to undergo reformative training and stated that the accused’ s treatment needs could be met through specialized treatment programmes to address his criminal thinking and addiction problems, and equip him with pro-social thinking and life skills necessary to reduce his risk of re-offending, and also academic course upgrade his education level to ‘N’ levels, if he is sentenced to reformative training.

Sentencing considerations and principles

8 In Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Al Ansari bin Basri [2008] 1 SLR 449, the offender had pleaded guilty to one charge under s 392 read with s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) for having committed robbery with his accomplices and was sentenced by a District Court to supervised probation for a period of 18 months with additional conditions. He was sentenced to reformative training by the High Court in an appeal by the prosecution. The general analytical framework for dealing with young offenders involved in serious offences and the need to strike an appropriate balance between rehabilitation and deterrence as well as the sentencing considerations and factors in this regard have been explicitly set out by the learned Judge of Appeal, Justice V K Rajah, at [1] to [2], [51] to [55], [57] to [58], [67], [77] to [78] and [103] to [104] in Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Al Ansari bin Basri [2008] 1 SLR 449 as follows:

“1 The courts generally lean in favour of rehabilitating young offenders between 16 and 21 years of age whenever they consider it beneficial to both the offender and society. This, however, does not mean that probation...