Public Prosecutor v Mok Ping Wuen Maurice

• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 14 September 1998
• Neutral Citation: [1998] SGHC 306
• Citation: [1998] SGHC 306
• Defendant Counsel: Chong Eng Chong and Tan Beng Hock (Choo & Joethy)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Amarjit Singh (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Date: 14 September 1998
• Docket Number: Magistrate’s Appeal No 151 of 1998
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Consumption of controlled drug,Robbery in furtherance of a common intention,Relevance of consistency of sentencing,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Forms of punishment,Young offender,Reformative training,Probation,Sentencing,Whether appropriate

Judgment:

YONG PUNG HOW CJ

On 24 April 1998, the accused pleaded guilty to two charges, first robbery in the furtherance of a common intention punishable under s 392 read with s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224); secondly, the consumption of a Class `A` controlled drug, an offence under s 8(b) and punishable under s 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185). After conviction, a third charge was taken into consideration for sentencing, namely, the use of criminal force on a public servant with intent to deter the public servant from discharging his duty, an offence under s 353 of the Penal Code. On 6 June 1998, he was ordered to undergo reformative training in the Reformative Training Centre. Both the Public Prosecutor and the accused appealed against the sentence. After hearing arguments from both sides, I dismissed both appeals and now set out my reasons.

2. The charges

The two charges were:

DAC 27831/97

You, Mok Ping Wuen Maurice, m/17 yrs NRIC No: S 8015433-Z are charged that you on, or about 20 November 1997, at or about 2.50am, at the car park of Block 260 Jurong East Street 24, Singapore, together with Chai Tze Chiat and Lim Tong Lee, Ramsis, in the furtherance of the common intention of you all, did commit robbery of cash $80 in the possession of one taxi driver Kok Siew Cheong and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 392 read with s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

MAC 13582/97

You, Mok Ping Wuen, m/17 yrs NRIC: S 8015433Z Nationality: SC Address: Block 205, Jurong East Street 13 #03-139 are charged that you on or about 5 November 1997 at or about 5.20pm, at Block 135 Jurong East Street 13, 6th Floor, Singapore did consume a controlled drug as specified in Class `A` of the First Schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) to wit, 11-Nor-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol9carboxylic acid, a cannabinol derivative, is a class A controlled drug listed in the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185), without authorisation under the said Act or the Regulations made thereunder and you have thereby committed an offence under s 8(b) and punishable under s 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185).

3.The following charge was taken into consideration for sentencing:

DAC 28194/97

You, Name: Mok Ping Wuen Male 17 years old NRIC No: S 8015433-Z Nationality: SC Address: Block 205 Jurong East Street 13 #03-139 are charged that you on or about 5 November 1997 at or about 5.25pm at Block 135, Jurong East Street 13, 6th Floor, Singapore, used criminal force on one Masrani bin Manan, a police constable bearing No 96582, a public servant, to wit, by pushing the said officer on the chest with both your hands, with intent to deter the said public servant, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 353 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

4. The facts

With respect to DAC 27831/97, on 20 November 1997, at about 2.40am, the accused and his accomplices, Chai Tze Chiat and Lim Tong Lee Ramsis, boarded a taxi driven by Kok Siew Cheong in front of Jurong Entertainment Centre, along Jurong East Street 13. They then directed the driver to proceed to Jurong East Street 24. All three of them sat in the rear, with Chai Tze Chiat directly behind the driver. When they reached Jurong East Street 24, they further directed him to turn into the car park of Block 260, Jurong East Street 24. At about 2.50am, the accused alighted from the taxi. Chai Tze Chiat immediately took out a chopper, placed it on the right side of the driver`s neck, shouted "robbery" in Hokkien, and demanded money. The driver handed over $80 to Lim Tong Lee Ramsis. In an ensuing struggle, the driver injured his hands. He had lacerations on both his index fingers. The three accomplices ran from the scene and the accused was later given $30 as his share.

5.At about 4.45 pm that day, the police arrested Chia Tze Chiat outside the Food Court, Jurong East Central, and seized $13 from him. On the next day, 21 November 1997, the police arrested the accused at his house and recovered his $30. At about 3.30 pm the following day, Lim Tong Lee Ramsis surrendered himself.

6.As to MAC 13582/97, on 5 November 1997, at about 5.20pm, the accused was arrested on suspicion of having consumed a controlled drug. He was then taken to Jurong Police Division HQ where a urine sample was taken . On analysis, the Department of Scientific Services stated that the sample contained a cannabinol derivate, a Class `A` controlled drug under the First Schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act.

7.From the probation officer`s report, the accused had no previous convictions, but received a police caution in July 1997. He was then a member of the 24 Gi Hai Kim group, and had been arrested when he shouted the gang`s name several times during a funeral procession.

8.The accused attended Yuhua Primary School, then Clementi Town Secondary School. He completed his `N` Levels in 1996. From his form teacher and principal`s reports, the accused first showed disinterest in his studies after his `N` Level examinations. In 1997, his behaviour was a cause of concern and he expressed a desire to leave school. The principal felt that this could be due to his mixing with bad company.

9.Chia Tze Chiat (19 at the time of the offence) was sentenced to six years` jail and 24 strokes. Lim Tong Lee Ramsis (17 at the time of the offence) was granted 30 months` probation with conditions of residence at Teen Challenge, a time restriction from 10pm to 6am, 100 hours of community service, and a bond by each of his parents of $5,000.

10. The decision below

Before passing sentence, the court called for a pre-sentence report and a reformative training centre report on the accused.

11.In the pre-sentence report, the probation officer considered the accused`s circumstances and recommended 30 months` intensive probation with the following conditions: (a). voluntary residence at the hiding place for 18 months;

(b). parents to be bonded to ensure his good behaviour;

(c). time restriction from 10pm to 6am; and

(d). 180 hours of community service after his discharge from the hiding place.

12.In the reformative training centre...