Public Prosecutor v Perumal s/o Suppiah

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 02 June 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] SGHC 103
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 61 of 2000
• Date: 02 June 2000
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 2000
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ng Cheng Thiam (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Citation: [2000] SGHC 103
• Defendant Counsel: Respondent in person
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Powers of sentencing court,Applicable principles,Whether preventive detention appropriate,Preventive detention,ss 11(3) & 17 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed),Whether court had discretion not to impose preventive detention once threshold test met,ss 12(2)(a) & 12(2)(b) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed),Whether appropriate to consider length of imprisonment previously imposed on offender,Mitigation,Whether prospect of remission relevant consideration,Sentencing,Hardship to offender's family of little mitigating value save in exceptional circumstances,Jurisdictional limit of district court

: This was an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against sentence passed by District Judge Khoo Oon Soo.

The respondent pleaded guilty to two charges of voluntarily causing hurt with a dangerous weapon under s 326 Penal Code (Cap 224) and of drug consumption under s 8(b)(i) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) with the enhanced punishment prescribed in s 33(3) of the same Act. He was sentenced to three years` imprisonment and six strokes of the cane on the s 326 Penal Code charge and four years` imprisonment on the drug consumption charge. Both sentences were ordered to run consecutively, making a total of seven years` imprisonment and six strokes of the cane.

At the close of the appeal, I set aside the sentences of imprisonment and sentenced the respondent to preventive detention for a period of ten years. I did not vary the district judge`s orders in relation to the six strokes of the cane on the charge under s 326 of the Penal Code. I now give my reasons in writing.

The facts

Charge under s 326 Penal Code (Cap 224)

According to the statement of facts which was admitted without qualification, the respondent was drinking with the victim and two other friends at a coffeeshop at the material time. When the victim stood up to leave, the respondent suddenly slashed his face, using a paper cutter with a blade measuring about 10 cm in length. He continued slashing the victim on the face until the latter dropped to the ground. The respondent then walked away from the scene. The police later conducted a search and detained the respondent in the vicinity of the attack. A paper cutter was also recovered from him.

The victim suffered the following injuries as a result:

a incised wound extending from upper part of forehead between nose and eye on the left side extending below along nasio-labial fold up to the chin on left side measuring about 20 cm;

b incised wound extending from left side of cheek to left ala of nose measuring about 4 cm;

c incised wound over outer end of left upper eyelid measuring about 2 cm;

d incised wound over upper end of columella of nose measuring 1 cm;

e incised wound in front of right ear extending downward and forward direction towards body of mandible and then extending to middle of upper part of neck measuring about 16 cm;

f incised wound extending from middle of right side neck to the inner end of left clavicle;

g incised wound over anterior chest, near clavicle on right side measuring 5 cm;

h fractures of 5th metacarpal and proximal phalanx of little finger of right hand.

The victim was warded for two nights at the hospital. The incised wounds were sutured while the fractures were conservatively treated. According to the medical report, the multiple slash wounds over the face will result in scarring and permanent disfigurement.

Charge under s 8(b)(i) read with s 33(3) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185)

The respondent was arrested on suspicion of having consumed a controlled drug. A urine specimen was taken from him and forwarded to the Department of Scientific Services for analysis. It was subsequently confirmed that the urine specimen contained 11-Nor-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid, which is a cannabinol derivative (cannabis). Prior to this, the respondent had been previously convicted on 15 May 1987 for an offence of consumption of a controlled drug for which he was fined a sum of $500.

Mitigation in the court below

The prosecution did not address the court on sentence in the court below. It was however revealed that the respondent had a lengthy history of previous convictions spanning from 1979 to date. These consisted of various offences involving the use of force, including a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, affray, voluntarily causing hurt as well as theft and drug related offences for which he was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment ranging from one day to six years and fines. He was also sentenced to six strokes of the cane for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In addition, the respondent had other drug related antecedents. He was admitted to drug rehabilitation centres on three occasions (in 1987, 1988 and 1990) and had also been placed under drug supervision on four previous occasions.

In mitigation, counsel for the respondent in the court below relied on the fact that he was married with two young children aged six and ten. The respondent claimed that he was waylaid and assaulted by the victim and his friends some five weeks prior to the incident during which he sustained a 13 cm laceration. In essence, the respondent claimed that the attack was precipitated by the victim who had made fun of a scar on the respondent`s right check. It was also submitted that the previous consumption offence was committed a long time ago and that the current offence was committed because of the stress arising from investigation into the assault incident. Finally, his counsel submitted that preventive detention would be too harsh a punishment as it offered no prospect of remission.

The sentence imposed by the district judge

The respondent was aged 43 at the time of the offences. The district judge noted that the previous convictions showed the respondent to be a man of violence and a menace to society. Accordingly he called for a preventive detention report which confirmed that the respondent was suitable for preventive detention. The district judge noted that it was clear that the respondent faced the prospect of a substantial period of imprisonment.

After counsel`s renewed mitigation, the district judge reconsidered the previous convictions. He noted that the respondent`s most serious offence was committed in 1979 and that the longest prison term which he received in the 1990s was for a period of eight months for an offence of voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant. He also noted that no weapons or dangerous means were used in his past offences. The district judge held that he retained the discretion not to impose preventive detention, especially if the court was satisfied that its protective purpose could also be achieved by a substantial term of imprisonment. He thus declined to impose preventive detention and sentenced the respondent to a total of seven years` imprisonment and six strokes of the cane.

The appeal

The prosecution contended that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and urged me to impose a sentence of preventive detention with caning. In its written grounds of appeal, the prosecution contended that the district judge had failed to give sufficient weight to the respondent`s previous convictions which demonstrated him to be a menace to society. It was also submitted that the district judge had failed to appreciate the gravity of the respondent`s offence and had given undue consideration to his renewed mitigation. Finally the prosecution submitted that the district judge had failed to give adequate consideration to the need to protect the public and had wrongly exercised his discretion in declining to sentence the respondent to preventive detention.

Whether a substantial period of custody is expedient for the protection of the public

In view of the respondent`s age and previous convictions, this was potentially a case which called for preventive detention The regime of preventive detention is prescribed by s 12(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) (CPC):

Where a person who is not less than 30 years of age -

(a) is convicted before the High Court or a District Court of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of 2 years or upwards, and has been convicted on at least 3 previous occasions since he attained the age of 16 years of offences punishable with such a sentence, and was on at least two of those occasions sentenced to imprisonment or corrective training; or

(b) ...

then, if the court is satisfied that it is expedient for the protection of the public that he should be detained in custody for a substantial period of time, followed by a period of supervision if released before the expiration of the sentence, the Court, unless it has special reasons for not so doing, shall pass, in lieu of any sentence of imprisonment, a sentence of preventive detention of such term of not less than 7 nor more than 20 years as the Court may determine.

As I have previously stated in Kua Hoon Chua v PP [1995] 2 SLR 386 at 389F, preventive detention is a fitting punishment when an offender poses a `menace to society`. I have recently affirmed and reiterated this position in PP v Wong Wing Hung [1999] 4 SLR 329 at [para ] 9 and 10 where I stated:

... the purpose of imposing preventive detention is in order to protect the public. If the offender in question proved by his history of criminal behaviour to be a menace to society, he should be and must be put away for the protection and safety of the community at large.

Bearing in mind the objective and rationale behind the imposition of preventive detention, it should be clear that this sentence is meant essentially for habitual offenders, who must be over the age of 30 years, whom the court considers to be beyond redemption and too recalcitrant for reformation.

Thus, the first question which arose in this appeal was whether the respondent had proved by his history of criminal behaviour to be a menace to society which necessitated his incarceration for a substantial period of time for the protection and safety of the community at large. In calling for the preventive detention report, the district judge had himself noted that the previous convictions showed the respondent to be a man of violence and a menace to society.

The respondent was now 43 years of age. His criminal career began in 1979 and he had since garnered a total of 17 convictions in the space of some 20 years, including the present two offences. These consisted of a variety of...