District Judge Luke Tan:
Introduction
The Accused, Nirmal Singh, is a 34-year-old male Indian citizen. He was a member of a group which clashed with another group on 2 April 2017, at or about 1.05 pm, along Kampong Bahru Road, Singapore. Members of both groups were armed with wooden planks, wooden poles and belts during the altercation.
The Accused was charged with committing an offence under section 148 read with (r/w) section 149 Chapter 224. His charge reads:
“You…. are charged that you, on 2 April 2017, at or about 1.05 pm, along Kampong Bahru Road, Singapore, together with Lovepreet Singh, Jagroop Singh, Daler Singh, Gurjant Singh, Gill Harpreet Singh, and Gurlal Singh, and numerous other unknown persons were members of an unlawful assembly whose common object was to cause hurt to Mandeep Singh (Gxxx), Mandeep Singh (Gxxx), Malkit Singh, Gursewak Singh, Yadwinder Singh, Gurdan Singh, Palwinder Singh, and numerous other persons, and in the prosecution of the said common object of the assembly, and while you were all members of the said assembly, some of you used violence in the prosecution of the said common object by attacking the said persons, and were armed with objects which, used as a weapon of offence, are likely to cause death, to wit, wooden planks and wooden poles, and you have by thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 148 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed).”
The Accused initially claimed trial. His trial, together with that of other rioters, was due to begin on 8 October 2018. However, on that date, the Accused decided to plead guilty.
Thereafter, before me, he pleaded guilty and admitted to the contents of the statement of facts (SOF) without qualification. In addition, the Accused did not dispute the contents of a video, taken by a video camera on a passing SBS bus, which showed two groups of people clashing with each other. The Accused himself was shown on the video swinging a belt, although it could not be seen whether he did in fact hit anyone with the belt.
For his offence, the Prosecution sought a sentence of at least 36 months’ imprisonment and 6 strokes of the cane. The Accused, who was represented by Mr Kertar Singh (“Mr Singh”), submitted for a sentence not exceeding 27 months’ imprisonment and 6 strokes of the cane. Having considered the SOF, the submissions of parties, the precedents tendered, the relevant sentencing principles and factors, and the fact that the Accused had been in remand for about one month before he was placed on bail, I sentenced the Accused to 31 months’ imprisonment and 6 strokes of the cane. The Accused, being dissatisfied, has filed an appeal against sentence. I now set out my reasons for arriving at the sentence imposed.
The Statement of Facts (SOF)
The Accused admitted to the contents of the SOF without qualification. The SOF is reproduced, which some parts highlighted in bold and underlined for emphasis.
| |
| STATEMENT OF FACTS A. The accused persons 1. The accused persons in Group A are: a. Daler Singh (“Daler”), male / 22 years old (FIN: xxx); b. Jagroop Singh (“Jagroop”), male / 24 years old (FIN: xxx); c. Nirmal Singh (“Nirmal”), male / 34 years old (FIN: xxx); d. Gill Harpreet Singh (“Harpreet”), male / 26 years old (FIN: xxx); e. Lovepreet Singh (“Lovepreet”), male / 24 years old (FIN: xxx); f. Gurjant Singh (“Gurjant”), male / 27 years old (FIN: xxx); g. Gurlal Singh (“Gurlal”), male / 22 years old (FIN: xxx); and h. Numerous other persons. 2. The accused persons in Group B are: a. Mandeep Singh (nicknamed “Babbu”), male / 30 years old (FIN: xxx); b. Mandeep Singh (nicknamed “Gary”), male / 24 years old (FIN: xxx); c. Gursewak Singh (“Gursewak”), male / 29 years old (FIN: xxx); d. Gurdan Singh (“Gurdan”), male / 23 years old (FIN: xxx); e. Yadwinder Singh (“Yadwinder”), male / 25 years old (FIN: xxx); f. Malkit Singh (“Malkit”), male / 23 years old (FIN: xxx); g. Palwinder Singh, male / 25 years old (FIN: xxx); and h. Numerous other persons. B. First Information Report 3. On 2 April 2017 at about 1.07 pm, a member of public called the Police stating, “Around 50 to 60 people fighting with sticks”. The incident location given was the vicinity of Blk 149 Silat Ave, Singapore. C. Facts relating to the Rioting Charge on 2 April 2017 4. Investigations revealed that on 2 April 2017, in the late morning, the members of Group A and Group B went to the Silat Road Sikh Temple (the “Temple”). Between 12.45pm to 1.00pm, both Group A and Group B left separately from the Temple. 5. While both groups were walking along Kampong Bahru Road, some members of Group A and Group B got into a quarrel. This escalated into a fight between the members of Group A and Group B. Both Groups were armed with belts, wooden planks and wooden poles. Members of both Groups used wooden poles, planks and belts to hit members of the opposing group. The brawl also occurred along Kampong Bahru Road, therefore it occurred in full view of the public and caused disruption to traffic. 6. In the course of the fight, the nature of the respective involvement of accused persons in Group A are as follow: a. Daler had swung a belt at another person; b. Jagroop was seen holding a belt; c. Nirmal had swung a belt at other persons; d. Harpreet was seen holding a belt; e. Lovepreet had swung a belt at another person; f. Gurjant had swung a belt and threw a wooden plank at the direction of another person; g. Gurlal was seen picking up a wooden plank; and h. Other persons were seen swinging belts, wooden poles and wooden planks. 7. In the course of the fight, Malkit Singh was hit on the head by an unknown person from Group A with a broken stick. 8. In the course of the fight, the nature of the respective involvement of accused persons in Group B are as follow: a. Malkit was armed with a belt and had charged at Group A; b. Gursewak had swung a wooden plank at another person; c. Yadwinder had swung a wooden plank at another person; d. Gurdan had thrown a wooden plank at another person; e. Palwinder was seen raising a wooden plank above his head; f. Gary was armed with a belt; and g. Babbu was armed with a belt; 9. Other persons were seen swinging belts, wooden poles and wooden planks. 10. In the course of the assault, Lovepreet was hit on the head by an unknown person from Group B with a metal pipe. 11. Malkit was sent to Singapore General Hospital for medical treatment. The medical report prepared by Dr Teo Tess Lin states that he sustained a 4cm vertical scalp laceration over the vertex of the skull that extended down to the skull bone. There was also an additional 3cm diagonal abrasion adjacent to the said laceration which was not gaping. Malkit received a tetanus injection and underwent toileting and suturing of the 4cm scalp laceration. It was closed in layers and required a total of 18 stitches. He was granted medical leave from 3 to 4 April 2017 (2 days). 12. Lovepreet was sent to Singapore General Hospital for medical treatment. The medical report prepared by Dr Sohil Pothiawala Equbal states that the following injuries were observed: a. 1cm laceration over the left temporal scalp b. 1cm laceration over the vertex of the scalp c. 3cm laceration over the occipital area d. Displaced comminuted fracture of the middle phalanx of the little finger with intra-articular extension 13. Lovepreet was granted medical leave from 2 to 5 April 2017 (4 days). D. Conclusion 14. Nirmal Singh was therefore a member of an unlawful assembly whose common object was to cause hurt to Group B, and in the prosecution of the said common object of the assembly, and while they were all members of the said assembly, some of them used violence in the prosecution of the said common object by attacking the said persons, and were armed with objects which, used as a weapon of offence, are likely to cause death, to wit, wooden planks and wooden poles, and he has thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 148 r/w 149 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed). |
Prescribed Punishment and Antecedent Record
An offender who is convicted of an offence under section 148 (r/w section 149) of the Penal Code “shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to caning.”
The Accused is a first offender.
Prosecution’s Submissions on Sentence
The Prosecution tendered a written submission and also responded to some of the matters put up by the Defence in mitigation. In essence, the Prosecution submitted that the sentence imposed should be at least 36 months’ imprisonment and 6 strokes of the cane due to the following factors: Large group of persons: The DPP highlighted that the size of the group involved in such rioting offences was a relevant sentencing consideration (citing Law Aik Meng [2007] 2 SLR(R) 814 at [25(b)]). In the present case, the video footage showed that the number of persons involved in the rioting was very large, and it far exceeded the number of people who have been charged. Offence was committed on a public road : As this was a violence-related offence committed on a public road, it caused public fear and alarm, and “…the fact that an offender chooses to commit the offence in a public place is a factor that may enhanced his culpability…” (see PP v Ong Chee Heng [2017] SGHC 213 at [45]). In the present case, there was actual disruption caused to traffic and the incident was also witnessed by members of the public. Violence was caused: As violence was involved, caning was warranted on the basis of retribution and general deterrence. Consistent with the holding of the Court of Appeal in Chia Kim Heng Frederick v PP [1992] 1 SLR(R) 63 at [17], caning is particularly effective in achieving the aim of deterrence. Here, general deterrence should be...
