Public Prosecutor v Poh Ting Ting and Neoh Sok Hoon Audrey

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Mathew Joseph
• Judgment Date: 17 May 2013
• Neutral Citation: [2013] SGDC 147
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC 23634 of 2013 and DAC 23635 of 2013
• Published date: 16 April 2014
• Year: 2013
• Hearing Date: 18 April 2013,13 March 2013,15 March 2013,17 March 2013,16 April 2013
• Plaintiff Counsel: APP Jamunah
• Defendant Counsel: R Thrumurgan
• Citation: [2013] SGDC 147

District Judge Mathew Joseph: Background

This case involved 6 female accused persons who had all pleaded guilty to their respective charges under section 143 of the Penal Code Cap 224. The respective charges against all of them stated that they were members of an unlawful assembly whose common object was to cause hurt to Sim Choon Fong (female/27 years old), The Prosecution was of the view that they should all be sentenced to custodial terms of imprisonment. The Defence was of the view that Probation orders should be made against all 6 of the accused persons.

B1 Ang Hui Ying, female 29 years old, was earlier sentenced by this court to 6 weeks imprisonment for her role in the same offence. B2 Nurul Bayah Binte Abdullah, female 24 years old was also sentenced to 6 weeks imprisonment by this court.

The remaining 2 accused persons, namely, Poh Ting Ting (B3 Poh) female/32 years old and Neoh Sok Hoon, Audrey (B6 Neoh) female 33 years old, were both sentenced to pay a fine of $5,000 or in default 5 weeks imprisonment. Both the Prosecution and the Defence have appealed against this sentence of a Fine imposed on B3 Ting and B6 Audrey. I now state the reasons for my decision.

Facts

The Joint Statement of Facts tendered by the Prosecution was as follows - The victim is Sim Choon Fong, a 27-year-old female Singaporean bearing NRIC No. xxx. She is working as a cleaner. Accused persons The accused persons are: B1 Ang Hui Ying, a 29-year-old female Singaporean bearing NRIC No. xxx. B2 Nurul Bayah Binte Abdullah, a 24-year-old female Singaporean bearing NRIC No. xxx. B3 Poh Ting Ting, a 32-year-old female Singaporean bearing NRIC No. xxx. B4 Siti Juraidah Binte Samin, a 23-year-old female Singaporean bearing NRIC No. xxx. B5 Nurfarhanah Binte Abdullah, a 23-year-old female Singaporean bearing NRIC No. xxx. B6 Neoh Sok Hoon Audrey, a 33-year-old female Singaporean bearing NRIC No. xxx. The accused persons are all freelance sex workers plying their trade along Geylang Lorong 24, Singapore. Witnesses The witnesses are: W1 Ong Ho Chuan, a 44-year-old male Singaporean. He is the boyfriend of B3 Ting Ting. W2 Chen Yi Hao, a 15-year-old male Singaporean. He is B3 Ting Ting’s godson. W3 Wong Tai Kin, a 46-year-old male Singaporean. He is B6 Audrey’s boyfriend. First Information Report On 27 June 2012 at about 5.11pm, the victim lodged a report at Kampong Glam NPP stating that she had been assaulted by the 6 accused persons. The incident location was given as Lorong 24 Geyalng, 7-11 back lane near SPA building. Facts leading to the charges Investigations revealed that on 26 June 2012 at about 11.30pm, the victim had received a call from B1 Hui Ying. B1 Hui Ying said that she was alone and asked the victim to meet her at a bus stop at Lorong 24 Geylang. The victim agreed, thinking that B1 Hui Ying needed company, and went to the location in a cab. Upon arrival, she realized that both B1 Hui Ying and B2 Nurul were present. The trio went to the 7-11 nearby to purchase something to eat. When they exited, the victim saw W1 Ong, B3 Ting Ting and B6 Audrey approaching them. The three new individuals told the victim to go to the area behind 7-11, in the vicinity of 102 Guillemard Road, where they were supposed to “talk”. B1 Hui Ying led the victim there. However, when the entire group arrived at the location, the victim realized that B4 Siti and B5 Nurfarhanah were already waiting for them there. The accused persons indicted the victim for spreading rumours amongst them; B5 Nurfarhanah was the one who sparked off the quarrel. Thereafter, B3 Ting Ting, B4 Siti and B5 Nurfarhanah scolded the victim as she sat at the staircase next to the lift; scared, the victim started crying. As she was denying the accused persons’ allegations against her, B4 Siti got fed up and asked B5 Nurfarhanah to “settle it fast”. Suddenly, the accused persons set upon her. B5 Nurfarhanah started the attack by punching the victim’s face, namely the victim’s left cheek and eyes; B4 Siti pulled the victim’s hair, hit her head against the low wall beside the staircase, kneed the victim’s left cheek twice and kicked the victim around her left breast region, against the victim’s ribs. B5 Nurfarhanah then asked which of the rest of the accused persons wished to beat up the victim. At this point, B6 Audrey came forward and slapped the victim’s left and right cheeks, followed by B3 Ting Ting who came forward and also slapped her twice. B1 Hui Ying then approached the victim and slapped her face twice as well. B4 Siti asked B1 Hui Ying, “You slap like this enough meh? Slap some more la.”, whereupon B1 Hui Ying slapped the victim twice again. B2 Nurul was the last to come up to the victim; she slapped the victim twice and kicked her on her back ribs. Throughout this entire period, the victim had not retaliated and had only cried and pleaded with them to stop. The group also smashed the victim’s handphone. According to the victim, B5 Nurfarhanah then warned the victim that it was her last lesson and told her not to call for the police or B5 Nurfarhanah would get her girls from Lorong 10 to hit the victim. The group then dispersed. A medical report dated 6 July 2012 prepared by Dr Nina Laxmikantha, a Service Registrar with the Department of Emergency Medicine of Singapore General Hospital, stated that the victim suffered bruises to the left face, forearm, upper arm and lateral side of the breast and both eyes. The victim was discharged with analgesia and issued medical leave for 3 days. Further investigations revealed that the victim used to work together with the accused persons and was a confidante to several of them. However, when the victim had attempted to resolve issues between the accused persons by speaking to each of them about the others’ unhappiness, they had turned on her and accused her of speaking bad about them behind their backs instead. The victim had ceased contacting them about one week before the incident in part due to the unhappiness generated as well as because she had decided to make a clean break with the area and stop working there. However, B1 Hui Ying and B5 Nurfarhanah had discussed the issue and decided that they wanted to confront the victim. B5 Nurfarhanah had thus asked B1 Hui Ying to call the victim down to the incident location. The accused persons had thereafter all taken part in the assault upon the victim with the common object of causing hurt to her as they were unhappy about what they had perceived as the victim’s spreading of rumours about them. Investigations also revealed that B4 Siti and B5 Nurfarhanah, each consumed a few bottles o falcohol just prior to meeting up with the victim. The accused persons were members of an unlawful assembly whose common object was to cause hurt to the victim and they have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 143 Cap 224. They have admitted to the offence and stand charged accordingly.”

Medical Report

The medical report of the victim disclosed that the victim suffered bruises to the left face, forearm, upper arm and lateral side of the breast and both eyes. The victim was discharged with analgesia and issued medical leave for 3 days.

Antecedents

For Poh, I noted that she had previously been placed on probation in 1997 when she was 18 years old for an offence of theft under s. 379 of the Penal Code. She had successfully completed her probation.

Neoh has 3 previous convictions for theft. On 11 Apr 2007, she was convicted for theft under s. 379 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to a fine of $1,000. On 5 June 2007, she was again convicted for theft under s. 379 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to 2 weeks imprisonment. On 19 Sep 2007, she was convicted a third time for theft under s. 379 of the Penal Code and sentenced to 4 weeks imprisonment.

Prosecution’s submissions on sentence

Prosecution submitted that the offence in the present case was rioting and was therefore a serious offence. It warranted deterrence as group offences cause greater harm. Further, the victim had been brought to a secluded place before she was set upon by the group. It was akin to “predators encircling the victim.” The Prosecution also submitted that in cases involving adult offenders, it was only in exceptional cases that no custodial term is given. As they were adults, they did not deserve a second chance.

Submission by Defence

In the mitigation by Counsel for B3 Ting and B6 Audrey, it was stated that the Prosecution was taking a broad brush approach in asking for custodial terms for all the 6 accused persons. It was necessary to ask “why punish?” and also, the sentence must fit the offender. Both B3 Poh and B6 Neoh came from severely disadvantaged backgrounds and this was the reason for their involvement in the sex trade. There was a chance now for a positive intervention and to give them a second chance.

Calling of Probation reports

The Prosecution objected to the calling of a pre-sentence report for probation. However, Counsel Mr Ravinderpal Singh for B1 Ang, Counsel Mr Gregory Vijendran for B4 Siti and B5 Nurfarhanah and Counsel Mr R Thrumurugan for B2 Nurul Bayah, B3 Poh and B6 Neoh argued strongly for the calling of pre-sentence probation reports on all 6 accused persons.

I should state that despite the strong objections of the Prosecution, I was not averse to the calling of a probation report at this preliminary stage. In my mind, this would have the crippling effect of the court being deprived of useful and essential information concerning the background and character of the accused, including her prospects for reform and rehabilitation. I was also guided by the instructive comments in the case of Wong Shan Shan v PP [2008] SGHC 49 at [23], a judgment of Lee Seiu Kin J, where His Honour stated - “23 The function of a probation report is to equip the court in making a more informed sentencing...