Public Prosecutor v Mohd Abdul Rahman Bin Mohamad

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Ronald Gwee
• Judgment Date: 30 December 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] SGDC 305
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Arrest Case No 913723 of 2018 and Others, Magistrate’s Appeals No 9041 of 2022-01
• Published date: 10 January 2023
• Year: 2022
• Hearing Date: 07 April 2021,28 April 2021,17 June 2021,17 August 2021,15 September 2021,20 December 2021,26 January 2022,14 February 2022,02 March 2022
• Plaintiff Counsel: Chin Jincheng and Chong Yong (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Ng Jeanny (Jeanny Ng),Lee Yoon Tet Luke (Luke Lee & Co.),Accused in person (from 17 August 2021 to 24 November 2021 and from 26 January 2022 onwards).
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Offences,Property,Robbery,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing
• Citation: [2022] SGDC 305

District Judge Ronald Gwee:

Mohd Abdul Rahman Bin Mohamad (the “Accused”) pleaded guilty before me, to three charges. One charge involved robbery with hurt, and the other two involved housebreaking by night, in order to commit theft. All these three charges carried, as indicative punishment, mandatory minimum imprisonment sentences as well as mandatory caning. The Accused was represented by Defence Counsel (the “DC”) when he pleaded guilty, and when the Mitigation was presented.

When the Accused pleaded guilty, he understood the nature and consequences of his plea of guilt. This was confirmed by the DC. The Accused also admitted to the contents of the Statement of Facts (the “SOF”) without qualification. In addition to the three charges to which the Accused pleaded guilty to, the Accused admitted to 20 other charges and consented to these being taken into consideration (“TIC”) for purposes of sentencing. The Accused had a long history of prior offending. The TIC charges and the criminal record of the Accused will be referred to, later.

The Prosecution submitted that the Accused should be sentenced to a period of Corrective Training (“CT”) of at least 10 years, and 16 strokes of the cane. Following the framework set out in Sim Yeow Kee v PP and another appeal [2016] 5 SLR 936 (“Sim Yeow Kee”), the Prosecution submitted that had the Accused been sentenced to a sentence of “regular imprisonment” (the term as used in Sim Yeow Kee), the total imprisonment sentence “would likely” have been “at least 12 years’ imprisonment in total” (the “Indicative Regular Imprisonment Sentence”). The Prosecution submitted that a sentence of at least 10 years’ CT (and 16 strokes of the cane) would be appropriate in this case. The Defence did not dispute that the “technical requirements” for CT to be imposed had been satisfied. The Defence sought a shorter period of CT (and disputed that the Indicative Regular Imprisonment Sentence would add up to 12 years’ imprisonment).

The Accused was represented by DC Ms Jeanny Ng at the time he pleaded guilty and when the Mitigation was presented. DC Ms Ng was discharged from further acting for the Accused, on 17 August 2021. Thereafter, the Accused acted in person, till 24 November 2021, when DC Mr Luke Lee was appointed to act for the Accused. DC Mr Lee was discharged from further acting for the Accused on 26 January 2022. Thereafter, the Accused acted in person (including for the filing of the appeal herein). I shall refer to DC Ms Ng as the “1st DC” and Mr Lee as the “2nd DC” where it is necessary to differentiate between the two DC. At this stage, it must be stated that both the 1st DC and the 2nd DC had acted with the highest regard to their respective obligations as officers of the Court and in the upholding of the best traditions and values of the Bar when they represented the Accused.

The Accused had sought to retract his guilty plea subsequent to his being convicted (but prior to sentencing). Suffice to say, neither the 1st DC nor the 2nd DC would act for the Accused in making such an application. Ultimately, I heard submissions from the Prosecution and the Accused in person, as to whether the Accused should be allowed to retract his guilty plea. I found that there was no basis for rejecting the guilty plea, which had been taken when the Accused was very ably represented by the 1st DC. Allowing the retraction of the guilty plea would have amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court. Whilst the Notice of Appeal indicates that this appeal is only against Sentence, I shall briefly state the reasons why the application of the Accused to retract his guilty plea was rejected, later in these Grounds.

After considering the submissions on sentence from the Prosecution, and the Defence (contained in the Mitigation Plea prepared by the 1st DC) and from the Accused in person, I was satisfied that it was “expedient with a view to (the Accused’s) reformation and the prevention of crime that (the Accused) should receive training of a corrective character for a substantial period of time”, and that there were no “special reasons for not doing so”. The Accused was therefore sentenced to CT for a period of 10 years, backdated to 29 June 2018, the date of remand. The robbery with hurt charge also carried a mandatory caning sentence of at least 12 strokes of the cane. For the two housebreaking by night charges, the Accused was to be punished with caning as well. For the robbery with hurt charge, the Accused was sentenced to 12 strokes of the cane. For each of the two housebreaking by night charges, the Accused was sentenced to two strokes of the cane for each of these two charges.

The total sentence meted out to the Accused was CT for a period of 10 years, with effect from 29 June 2018, and 16 strokes of the cane. The Accused (acting in person) appealed against the Sentence, and is currently serving sentence.

For the three proceeded charges, the Accused had committed the offence of robbery with hurt on 8 April 2018. The two housebreaking by night charges were committed on 7 March 2018 and 26 June 2018 respectively. For the two housebreaking by night charges, the Accused had a similar antecedent and had been sentenced (on 15 June 2007) to imprisonment for two years and six months, and was therefore now to be punished with caning in addition to imprisonment that may be meted out for the offence.

The SOF sets out, in great detail, the circumstances surrounding each of these three proceeded charges. The Accused had admitted to the facts contained in the SOF when he pleaded guilty, without any qualification.

In respect of the robbery with hurt charge, the SOF describes that the main players in this offence were the Accused, and two other persons whom I shall refer to, for ease of reference, as “SM” and “GJ”. The robbery had taken place in a hotel room and involved the forceful taking of the sum of S$365,000 from one of three victims. Hurt was caused to the three victims. SM had caused hurt by punching two of the victims (including the one from whom the money was stolen). The Accused had caused hurt by punching the remaining victim.

SM and GJ were similarly charged for their respective roles in this robbery. SM was convicted on his plea of guilt and had been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years and four months (and caning). GJ had also pleaded guilty (separately) and was sentenced to imprisonment for three years (and caning). What has to be noted is that both SM and GJ had been charged with the lesser charge under s 392 of the Penal Code (robbery) which carried a mandatory minimum imprisonment sentence of three years. The Accused here faced the more serious charge of robbery with hurt under s 394 of the Penal Code which carried a mandatory minimum imprisonment sentence of five years.

As stated above, the Accused had attempted to retract his plea of guilt, by claiming that he was on medication at the time he entered his guilty plea, and had been pressured by the 1st DC to plead guilty. These allegations were refuted by the Prosecution, which put up a very detailed and persuasive rebuttal to the assertions of the Accused. The Prosecution cited the Court of Appeal decision in PP v Dinesh s/o Rajantheran [2019] 1 SLR 1289 (“Dinesh”). At [54] of Dinesh, the Court of Appeal stated that, “… the onus will be on the accused person to adduce sufficient evidence to convince the court that his plea of guilt was invalid. This is simply a consequence of the fundamental rule of evidence that he who asserts a fact bears the burden of proving it.”

The assertion by the Accused that the medication he took on the date he entered his plea of guilt had somehow affected his state of mind was shown to be without any basis. A letter dated 20 August 2021 from the Prison medical authorities showed that the medication the Accused had consumed on the material date did not cause “unawareness”. A report dated 11 February 2022 from the Institute of Mental Health (“IMH”) was produced pursuant to a further remand ordered to ascertain the state of mind of the Accused. The said IMH report opined that the Accused “was not of unsound mind at the time of the alleged offences” and was fit to plead. The IMH report further opined (in agreement with another IMH doctor from an earlier examination) that “should (the Accused) fail to cooperate with court proceedings, this would be intentional and deliberate on (the Accused’s) part”. The IMH doctor concluded his opinion by stating that “(The Accused’s) risk of offending in future is high.”

In dismissing the application of the Accused to reject his guilty plea, I made the following brief oral remarks, ex tempore.

(Start of oral remarks) “I will just be giving a few brief oral remarks before delivering my decision on the main point and that is whether Mr. Mohd Abdul Rahman would be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. On this point, the main case authority is the Court of Appeal decision...