Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Nur Danial bin Jamaludin

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lim Keng Yeow
• Judgment Date: 15 September 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] SGDC 250
• Docket Number: DAC 914505/2014 & ORS
• Published date: 16 September 2015
• Year: 2015
• Citation: [2015] SGDC 250
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPP Ruth Teng
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Mervyn Cheong
• Court: District Court (Singapore)

District Judge Lim Keng Yeow:

Mr Muhammad Nur Danial bin Jamaludin (“the offender”) pleaded guilty before me to a rioting charge under Section 147 of the Penal Code and a charge of abduction through forceful compulsion in furtherance of common intention under Section 363A of the Penal Code. I sentenced him to undergo reformative training. The defence, having sought a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment instead, filed a Notice of Appeal against that sentence.

The Statement of Facts admitted to by the offender indicated that offender played a rather major role in the rioting offence. It was he and another member who “decided to seek out the victim and to teach him a lesson” (para 5), and who mobilised the other participants. He was also the one who informed the group where they could go to in order to locate the victim. Furthermore, he also participated in the actual assault against the victim and along with a few others, repeatedly hit and punched the victim’s his head and face area. The group would later force the victim into a van, which act made out the offence of abduction.

The offence was gang-related in that four of the co-accused persons (including the offender) were part of a gang and that the victim of the offence was an ex-gang member whom a co-accused had stood bail for and had jumped bail and stopped participating in gang activities.

The victim’s ordeal resulted in him suffering a number of injuries. Two operations had to be carried out and his left index, middle and ring fingers were expected to continue to experience reduced range of movement and weakness.

The offender had criminal antecedents. For three counts of robbery, he had been placed on 21 months’ probation by the Juvenile Court in 2009. He reoffended on probation in 2010, repeating his offence of robbery and committing drug consumption offences. His probation was revoked and he was then placed in a juvenile home for 24 months.

It was probably in light of all of the above considerations that, although the offender was still 20 years of age, the defence did not invite me to consider making a probation order for the offences. The key contention of the defence was that the appropriate sentence should be 15 months’ imprisonment and not reformative training.

The premise of that submission was that a co-accused, Muhammad Hafiz bin Ahmad Suleh (aged 22 years, hereafter “B9”), also pleaded guilty to the commission of the same offences and was sentenced to...