Public Prosecutor v Mohammad Johan bin Rashid

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 28 March 2011
• Neutral Citation: [2011] SGHC 70
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 5 of 2011
• Published date: 06 April 2011
• Year: 2011
• Hearing Date: 28 March 2011,21 March 2011
• Plaintiff Counsel: David Khoo, Magdalene Huang and Andre Darius Jumabhoy (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
• Defendant Counsel: Thangavelu (Advocates Legal Chambers LLP) and Josephus Tan (Patrick Tan LLC)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law
• Citation: [2011] SGHC 70

Choo Han Teck J:

In cases such as this, as with most if not all serious criminal offences, the conduct in question cannot be condoned. The only factor that prevents a long deterrent sentence on the accused is that in this case, as in PP v Sarle Steepan s/o Kolundu [2009] 4 SLR(R) 1143 and PP v AFR [2010] SGHC 230, the act was not pre-meditated and arose from a total failure to control one’s anger.

Nonetheless, the seriousness of the case, and the grief and pain that had been caused to the deceased and his family are major factors in the determination of a fair and appropriate sentence: neither excessively harsh, nor lacking the retributive features in the punishment of serious crimes.

I agree with the DPP that in such cases there is little to be said by way of mitigation. The longer and harder one tries to mitigate, the further he runs the risk of diluting his assertion...