Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Amirul Bin Jamal

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Bala Reddy
• Judgment Date: 17 May 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] SGDC 140
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC 920200 of 2016, Magistrate’s Appeal No. 9143/2017/01
• Published date: 23 September 2017
• Year: 2017
• Hearing Date: 14 July 2016,23 June 2016,15 August 2016,21 April 2017,06 January 2017,04 August 2016
• Plaintiff Counsel: Deputy Public Prosecutor Sean Lee (23 June 2016)
• Defendant Counsel: Assistant Public Prosecutor Kalaithasan Karuppaya (14 July 2016 and 21 April 2017),Deputy Public Prosecutor Nicholas Wuan (4 August 2016),Assistant Public Prosecutor Prakash (15 August 2016),and Deputy Public Prosecutor Chong Yong (6 January 2017),Accused in Person
• Citation: [2017] SGDC 140

Principal District Judge Bala Reddy: Background

The accused Muhammad Amirul Bin Jamal, a Singapore citizen aged 20, pleaded guilty to one charge of acting on behalf of an unlicensed moneylender with common intention, under section 28(1)(b) of the Moneylenders Act (Cap 188, 2010 Rev Ed) (“Moneylenders Act”), read with section 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed).

I sentenced the accused to 24 months split probation (4 months intensive and 20 months supervised). However, upon breaches of the conditions of probation, I revoked the accused’s probation order, and sentenced him to undergo reformative training in a reformative training centre.

Being dissatisfied with the outcome, the accused has appealed against the sentence of reformative training. I will explain the reasons for this Court’s decision.

The Charge

The accused pleaded guilty to the following charge:

DAC 920200-2016

…[T]hat you, between the 23rd day of February 2016 at about 11.00p.m. and the 24th day of February 2016 at about 3.30 a.m., at Block 119 Bukit Batok West Avenue 6 #06-256, did abet by intentionally aiding one Nur Naziyah Binte Zainal F/26 years, one Nur Liyana Binte Osman F/23 years and one Mohamed Khairul Azwan Bin Jumaat M/27 years old, who in the furtherance of the common intention of them all, while acting on behalf of one unknown unlicensed moneylender, committed acts likely to cause annoyance to one Seah Song Teck, in connection with a loan, purportedly taken by unknown debtor, to wit, by concealing and disposing a ‘Sunkist’ bottle filled with paint before and after the said Nur Naziyah Binte Zainal, Nur Liyana Binte Osman and Mohamed Khairul Azwan Bin Jumaat splashed red paint on the unit, secured the gate with a red bicycle lock and scribbled “119 #08-256 Bukit Batok West O$P$ xxx Peter” using a black marker on the level 6 common corridor wall and in the course of committing the said act, caused damage to a certain property, which acts were carried out in consequence of your abetment, and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 28(1)(b) of the Moneylenders’ Act, Chapter 188 (Rev. Ed. 2010) read with Section 109 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 (Rev. Ed. 2008) punishable under Section 28(2)(a) and Section 28(3)(b)(i) of the Moneylenders’ Act, Chapter 188 (Rev. Ed. 2010).

The Statement of Facts

The Statement of Facts in respect of the above charge was as follows:

THE PARTIES

The Accused is Muhammad Amirul Bin Jamal, a male Singapore Citizen, NRIC No. xxx, presently 20 years old. At the material time, he was performing his national service.

2 The accomplices are as follows:-

(a) Nur Naziyah Binte Zainal (“Naziyah”), F/ 27 years old. Naziyah resides in the same block as the accused and was acquainted with the accused through one of his siblings;

(b) Nur Liyana Binte Osman (“Liyana”), F/ 23 years old. Liyana was acquainted with the accused through Naziyah; and

(c) Mohamed Khairul Azwan Bin Jumaat (“Khairul”), M/ 28 years old. He was acquainted with the accused through one of the accused’s siblings.

FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

3 On 24 February 2016 at about 3:34 am, the police received a ‘999’ call, informing: “Came across unit being splashed paint.” The incident location was given as Blk 119 Bukit Batok West Ave 6 #06-256, Singapore.

FACT RELATING TO THE CHARGE

4 Investigations revealed that Naziyah became acquainted with an Unlicensed Moneylender known to her as ‘Benson’ via the Internet sometime in February 2016 after coming across an advertisement offering personal loans. Naziyah then contacted ‘Benson’ via text messages and applied for a loan as she was in financial difficulties then. 5 Benson’ rejected her loan application and offered her a job working as a runner for fast cash whose duties were to carry out harassment acts on units as instructed by ‘Benson’. In return, she would be paid S$100/- for every unit that she harassed. Naziyah eventually agreed to this arrangement. Subsequently, she informed Liyana and Khairul about this development and both Liyana and Khairul also agreed to commit acts of harassment together with Naziyah on behalf of ‘Benson’. 6 Further investigations revealed that on 23 February 2016 at around 11.00 pm, the accused, Naziyah, Liyana and Khairul were chatting at the Level 5 staircase landing of Blk 210A Bukit Batok Street 21. During their conversation, in the presence of all, Naziyah poured some red paint from a can into an empty ‘Sunkist’ bottle. 7 All four persons then walked on foot to Blk 119 Bukit Batok West Avenue 6. Naziyah carried the ‘Sunkist’ bottle with her which was by now filled with red paint (“the said ‘Sunkist’ bottle). At this material time, Naziyah, Liyana and Khairul had the common intention to commit acts of harassment on behalf of ‘Benson’ as they had discussed it earlier prior to the chit-chat session which they just had. The accused did not know that Naziyah, Liyana and Khairul were intending to commit acts of harassment on behalf of an Unlicensed Moneylender but decided to follow the trio as he was bored. 8 Along the way, Naziyah revealed the true purpose of their intended activity to the accused however the accused remained quiet and continued to follow them. 9 Upon reaching the void deck of Blk 119 Bukit Batok West Avenue 6, Naziyah directed Liyana and Khairul to perform a check on unit #08-256 which was the targeted unit for harassment as instructed by ‘Benson’. The accused and Naziyah remained at the void deck while Liyana and Khairul took the lift to #08-256 to check on the unit. Thereat, the duo realized that there were CCTV cameras outside the unit. Liyana and Khairul then returned to Naziyah and informed her of their findings. 10 Naziyah communicated this information to ‘Benson’ who then re-directed Naziyah to carry out harassment at #06-256 (“the said Bukit Batok unit”) instead. While waiting at the void deck for an opportune moment to go up to Level 6, the accused took the said ‘Sunkist’ bottle from Naziyah and hid it at the nearby bicycle bay in case they were to be checked by police officers on patrol conducting spot checks. Sometime later, Naziyah, Liyana and Khairul proceeded up to the said Bukit Batok unit. Before they proceeded up, the accused retrieved the said ‘Sunkist’ bottle and handed it to Naziyah. He then waited at the void deck for their return. 11 At the Level 6 staircase landing wall, Liyana scribbled "119 #08-256 Bukit Batok West O$P$ xxx Peter" with a black marker. Naziyah secured a red bicycle lock at the side of the grille gate of #06-256; the gate could still be opened. Naziyah also splashed red paint on the door of #06-256. In the course of splashing the paint, some paint was also spilt on the door of the adjacent unit #06-254. Khairul stationed himself at the Level 5 staircase landing to act as a look out. Liyana then took photos of the unit and writing on the wall with Khairul's Samsung handphone. After committing these acts of harassment, Naziyah, Liyana and Khairul took the lift to the ground floor to meet the accused. Naziyah, Liyana and Khairul were captured on CCTV footage at this material time which was at about 3.30am on 24 February 2016. 12 The four of them then walked back on foot to Blk 210A Bukit Batok Street 21. Along the way, the accused came to know about the specific acts of harassment committed by Naziyah, Liyana and Khairul. The accused then asked Naziyah for the said ‘Sunkist’ bottle and Naziyah passed it to him. The accused then threw the said ‘Sunkist’ bottle into a dustbin along the way. 13 By this, the accused had concealed and then disposed the said ‘Sunkist’ bottle in order to facilitate the commission of the acts of harassment committed by Naziyah, Liyana and Khairul, and had thereby facilitated the commission thereof of those acts. The accused had thus abetted by intentionally aiding the abovementioned acts committed by Naziyah, Liyana and Khairul, which acts were likely to cause annoyance to the occupant of the said Bukit Batok unit, namely one Seah Song Teck, in connection with a loan purportedly taken by the occupant of #08-256, and in the course of committing the said acts caused damage to property. The abovementioned acts committed by Naziyah, Liyana and Khairul were carried out with the aid which constituted the accused’s abetment and the accused has thereby committed an offence punishable under s. 28(1)(b) of the Moneylenders Act (Cap 188, 2010 Rev Ed) (“MLA”) read with s. 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) punishable under s. 28(2)(a) and s. 28(3)(b)(i) of the MLA. 14 The accused has admitted to the commission of the abovementioned offence and is charged accordingly. Prosecution’s Address on Sentence

On 14 July 2016, the Prosecution urged the Court to call for only a Reformative Training Report or in the alternative, to call for both Probation and Reformative Training Reports. The Prosecution submitted that calling for only a Reformative Training Report will be consistent with the observations of Steven Chong J in PP v Nelson Jeyaraj s/o Chandran [2011] 2 SLR 1130, in favour of a harsh stance in dealing with harassment cases under the Moneylenders Act. While acknowledging that the accused did not commit the actual acts of harassment, the Prosecution highlighted that he had assisted in concealing and disposing of a key case exhibit of the crime, and the Court has to ensure that the sentence it metes out to the accused is in line with the public interest of sending out a strong deterrent signal with respect to the commission of harassment under the Moneylenders Act.

I called for both Probation and Reformative Training Reports, and placed the accused in remand pending the reports. I adjourned the sentencing to 4 August 2016.

Mitigation

In his handwritten mitigation note dated 25 July 2016, the accused expressed remorse for his...