Public Prosecutor v Ng Tai Tee Janet and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 20 November 2000
• Date: 20 November 2000
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeals Nos 185 and
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Public Prosecutor

Plaintiff

and

Ng Tai Tee Janet and another

Defendant

[2000] SGHC 285

Yong Pung How CJ

Magistrate's Appeals Nos 185 and 186 of 2000

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Sentencing–Aggravating factors–Role of accused persons in entire scheme–Collusion with activities of organised criminal syndicate–Whether consistency in sentencing overriding consideration–Whether court fettered by sentence on accomplice–Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Sentencing–Principles–Abetment of cheating by personation–Whether public interest considerations warranting imposition of custodial sentence–Whether deterrent sentence appropriate–Whether “clang of prison gates” principle applicable

The two respondents were recruited by one Ng as agents to source for persons willing to provide their names to apply for airline tickets. They would receive $150 from Ng for each name they obtained. Pursuant to this arrangement, the first respondent obtained the particulars of one Lye and used it to purchase an air ticket from Singapore to Japan. The second respondent met Lye to check in the air ticket and paid Lye $100 for the use of her particulars. Both respondents were aware that the air ticket and boarding pass would be used to enable an illegal immigrant to travel on a forged passport to Japan. At the Changi airport, a check by a police constable revealed one Yang attempting to assume Lye's identity and to travel on a boarding pass bearing Lye's name. Yang was also found in possession of a forged Japanese passport. Lye, the accomplice, pleaded guilty to an offence of abetment to commit cheating by personation for her role in the incident and was fined $2,000 whereas Ng, the mastermind, remained at large. The two respondents each pleaded guilty to one charge of abetment to commit cheating by personation. The district judge imposed a fine of $4,000 on each of the respondents. The Public Prosecutor appealed against the sentences imposed and argued that a custodial sentence was warranted for offences of this nature.

Held, allowing the appeal:

(1) In assessing the appropriate sentence to impose, the general principle was that only the public interest affected the type of sentence to be imposed whereas only aggravating or mitigating circumstances affect the duration or severity of the sentence imposed: at [11].

(2) The considerations of public interest made a custodial sentence warranted for all offences of the present nature. In the light of domestic and global efforts to combat organised illegal migration, the offence was particularly grave as it assisted the illegal immigrant in circumventing Singapore's strict immigration laws. Furthermore, custodial sentences had been imposed in previous cases involving offences of similar nature. Thus, the present offences called for a deterrent sentence and a fine would not be appropriate. The fact that the respondents were first offenders and had pleaded guilty were, at best, neutral factors: at [13] and [18].

(3) A deterrent sentence was granted entirely within the court's discretion and the Prosecution was not required in law to apply for deterrence before a court might consider it in the exercise of its discretion: at [19].

(4) The “clang of the prison gates” principle did not apply to the respondents in the present case. The facts here were not so exceptional or extenuating as to justify invoking this principle. Thus, the district judge erred in holding that the nine days spent in remand would have served as a sufficient deterrent: at [20].

(5) Taken in totality, the respondents played a fairly active role in the entire scheme even though they were not the mastermind. There was sufficient evidence for the court to infer that they had colluded with the activities of an organised criminal syndicate, which was an aggravating factor to be considered when determining the duration of the sentence: at [24] and [25].

(6) In determining the appropriate sentence, the court was not inclined to be fettered by the sentence imposed on the accomplice. Although consistency in sentencing was a desirable goal, it was not an overriding consideration since the sentences in similar cases might have been either too high or too low. Accordingly, the sentences were enhanced and each respondent was sentenced to one month's imprisonment in view of the need for general deterrence, although the fine imposed was reduced to $2,000 for each respondent: at [27] and [29].

Chng Gim Huat v PP [2000] 2 SLR (R) 360; [2000] 3 SLR 262 (refd)

Meeran bin Mydin v PP [1998] 1 SLR (R) 522; [1998] 2 SLR 522 (folld)

PP v Mok Ping Wuen Maurice [1998] 3 SLR (R) 439; [1999] 1 SLR 138 (folld)

PP v Tan Fook Sum [1999] 1 SLR (R) 1022; [1999] 2 SLR 523 (folld)

Siah Ooi Choe v PP [1988] 1 SLR (R) 309; [1988] SLR 402 (distd)

Tan Sai Tiang v PP [2000] 1 SLR (R) 33; [2000] 1 SLR 439 (refd)

Xia Qin Lai v PP [1999] 3 SLR (R) 257; [1999] 4 SLR 343 (refd)

Yong Siew Soon v PP [1992] 2 SLR (R) 261; [1992] 2 SLR 933 (folld)

Immigration Act (Cap 133, 1997 Rev Ed) s 57 (1) (ii)

Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 34, 109, 417, 419

Han Ming Kuang (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the appellant

Tan Kim Chiang (Angela Wong & Co) for the respondents.

Yong Pung How CJ

1 This was an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the sentences imposed by the district judge in the court below.

2 The two respondents each pleaded guilty to one charge of abetting, in furtherance of the common intention of both of them and one Lye Ai Ling, one Yang Yan Zhi to commit cheating by personation, to wit, by assuming the identity of Lye Ai Ling for the purpose of attempting to deceive a police constable attached to the Singapore Airport Terminal Services (“SATS”) to allow Yang Yan Zhi to board an airline flight bound for Osaka; which offence was punishable under s 109 read with s 419 read with s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

3 The...