Public Prosecutor v Quek Li Hao

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tay Yong Kwang J
• Judgment Date: 13 August 2013
• Neutral Citation: [2013] SGHC 152
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 19 July 2013
• Docket Number: Magistrate’s Appeal No 57 of 2013
• Plaintiff Counsel: Kenneth Wong and Vadivalagan Shanmuga (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
• Defendant Counsel: Respondent in person.
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing,Appeals
• Published date: 22 August 2013

Tay Yong Kwang J:

This was an appeal by the Prosecution against the sentences meted out to the Accused (“the Respondent”) by the District Judge (“DJ”) in respect of four charges of harassment with property damage. The Respondent committed the offences on behalf of an unlicensed moneylender, such offences being punishable under s 28(2)(a) read with s 28(3)(b)(i) of the Moneylenders Act (Cap 188, 2010 Rev Ed) (“Harassment Charges”).

At the conclusion of the appeal, I allowed the Prosecution’s appeal. I now set out my reasons.

The background

The Respondent, now 38 years old, stood as a guarantor for his friend, “Eric”, to borrow money from three unlicensed moneylenders. A few weeks later, “Eric” disappeared and the unlicensed moneylenders harassed the Respondent for repayment. As the Respondent was left to bear “Eric’s” debts, he started to take loans ranging from $500 to $1000 from other unlicensed moneylenders in order to pay off the existing debts.

Sometime in early 2012, the Respondent took a $500 loan from an unlicensed moneylender known as “Paul” as he needed cash urgently. Thereafter, whenever the Respondent needed cash urgently, he contacted “Paul” and obtained new loans from him. Sometime in mid July 2012, the Respondent was unable to repay “Paul”. “Paul” offered the Respondent the job of a “runner”, which included splashing paint at borrowers’ flats and scrawling “O$P$” at staircase walls. The Respondent was promised $70 for each unit which was harassed, with such payments to be used to set off the Respondent’s outstanding debts with “Paul”. The Respondent agreed and started working for “Paul” sometime in late July 2012.

The Respondent also borrowed from an unlicensed moneylender named “James”. In May 2012, he was unable to repay the loan. “James” told the Respondent that his flat would be harassed unless he opened a bank account for the use of his unlicensed moneylending business. The Respondent agreed to open a bank account and did so on 5 May 2012. He passed the Automated Teller Machine (ATM) card and Personal Identification Number (PIN) linked to the account to “James”. This formed the subject matter of the charge of assisting “James” in the carrying on of the business of money-lending punishable under s 14(1)(b)(i) read with s 14(1A)(a) of the Moneylenders Act (“Assisting Moneylender Charge”).¹

On 21 August 2012 at about 2.17am, one Zakaria Bin Osman called the police stating that “There is a Chinese man wearing grey T-shirt and black bermudas with spectacle just open his bag and write something on the wall”, giving the location as Block 17 Hougang Ave 3. The police arrived and managed to arrest the Respondent at the void deck of the said block of flats after a short chase.

The Respondent was found with the following items: One bag; Five plastic bags; One glove; One screwdriver; Two paint brushes; Four cans of green paint; Six marker pens; One pen; One bottle of WD40 – stain remover; One Nokia hand-phone; One piece of paper with entries; One receipt; and One can of used paint in a yellow plastic bag.

The Respondent consented to seven other charges of harassment on behalf of an unlicensed moneylender (by splashing paint and writing loan shark related graffiti) to be taken into consideration for sentencing purposes.

The charges

The Respondent pleaded guilty before the DJ to the following charges:

DAC 30189/2012:

[Quek Li Hao] are charged that you, on the 21st day of August 2012, at or about 2.17am, at the vicinity of Block 17 Hougang Ave 3 #12-153, Singapore, while acting on behalf of an unlicensed moneylender known as “PAUL”, did commit an act likely to cause annoyance to the borrower Ang Siok Chin and her family, in connection with a loan to the said borrower, to wit, by using an indelible black marker pen to write 3 sets of “12-153 O$P$ [xxx] KING” at the 10th, 11th and 12th floor staircase walls and also splashed green colour paint at neighbouring unit #11-153, and in the course of committing the said act, did cause damage to the said property, and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 28(1)(b) punishable under Section 28(2)(a) and Section 28(3)(b)(i) of the Moneylenders Act (Cap. 188).

DAC 31095/2012:

[Quek Li Hao] are charged that you, on the 25th day of July 2012, between 1.30am and 5.00am, at the vicinity of Block 559 Hougang Street 51 #14-396, Singapore, while acting on behalf of an unlicensed moneylender known as “PAUL”, did commit an act likely to cause annoyance to the unit occupant Syaiful Bahri Bin Mohamed Sapuan and his family, in connection with a loan to an unknown borrower, to wit, by using an indelible black marker pen to write two sets of “14-396 O$P$ [xxx] KING” at the 13th and 14th floor staircase walls and also splashed red colour paint at said unit #14-396 door and gate, and in the course of committing the said act, did cause damage to the said property, and you and thereby committed an offence under Section 28(1)(b) punishable under Section 28(2)(a) and Section 28(3)(b)(i) of the Moneylenders Act (Cap. 188).

DAC 31098/2012:

[Quek Li Hao] are charged that you, on the 9th day of August 2012, between 1.30am and 5.00am, at the vicinity of Block 710 Yishun Ave 5 #03-100, Singapore, while acting on behalf of an unlicensed moneylender known as “PAUL”, did commit an act likely to cause annoyance to a ‘surety’ of a borrower, Saleh Bin Mohamed and his family, in connection with a loan to the borrower, to wit, by using an indelible black marker pen to write three sets of “3-100 O$P$ KING [xxx]” at the 3rd, 4th and 5th floor staircase walls and also splashed red colour paint at the said unit’s door and gate, and in the course of committing the said act, did cause damage to the said property and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 28(1)(b) punishable under Section 28(2)(a) and Section 28(3)(b)(i) of the Moneylenders Act (Cap. 188).

DAC 32996/2012:

[Quek Li Hao] are charged that you, on the 16th day of August 2012, between 1.30am and 5.00am, at the vicinity of Block 319 Hougang Ave 5 #04-23, Singapore, while acting on behalf of an unlicensed moneylender known as “PAUL”, did commit an act likely to cause annoyance to the borrower Lee Tuan Poong and his family, in connection with a loan to the said borrower, to wit, by using an indelible black marker pen to write three sets of “4-23 O$P$ [xxx] KING” at the 4th, 5th and 6th floor staircase walls and also splashed blue colour paint at the said unit’s door and gate, and in the course of committing the said act, did cause damage to the said property, and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 28(1)(b) punishable under Section 28(2)(a) and Section 28(3)(b)(i) of the Moneylenders Act (Cap. 188).

DAC 32997/2012:

[Quek Li Hao] are charged that you, on the 5th day of May 2012, at United Overseas Bank (UOB) Toa Payoh Branch, Singapore, did assist one ‘James’, in the carrying on of the business of money-lending in Singapore, to wit, by opening an UOB account bearing number [xxx] under your name, and thereafter handing over the UOB Automated Teller Machine (ATM) card and Personal Identification Number (PIN) linked to the said UOB account to the said ‘James’, so as to facilitate the said ‘James’’ unlicensed money-lending business when ‘James’ was not an excluded moneylender or an exempt moneylender or authorised to do so by license, and you have thereby assisted in the contravention of Section 5(1) of the Moneylenders Act (Cap. 188) and thus has committed an offence punishable under Section 14(1)(b)(i) and 14(1A)(a) of the said Act.

The decision below

The punishments provided for the Harassment Charges are imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, a discretionary fine between $5,000 and $50,000 in amount and caning with three to six strokes. The DJ sentenced the Respondent to seven months’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane for each of the four Harassment Charges² and to one month’s imprisonment and a fine of $30,000 (in default, three weeks’ imprisonment) for the Assisting Moneylender Charge³. The Assisting Moneylender Charge is not the subject of the Prosecution’s appeal.

The DJ ordered two of the imprisonment terms for the Harassment Charges to run consecutively. The aggregate sentence was therefore 14 months’ imprisonment, 12 strokes of the cane and a fine of $30,000 (in default, three weeks’ imprisonment).

In arriving at the sentence of seven months’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane for each of the Harassment Charges, the DJ considered the following: The Respondent had a clean record; The Respondent was in the category of persons deserving of compassion as he had committed the offences due to unforeseen financial difficulties that were not of his own doing. He was a victim of circumstances spiralling beyond his control. Specifically, the Respondent had helped a friend by standing as the guarantor but the friend ‘turned out to be wholly unworthy and disappeared’. Further, as a dutiful son, he had to foot the medical bills of his sickly parents which further added to his financial woes; He pleaded guilty and was remorseful; His employers were willing to re-employ him after his period of incarceration; and He was unlikely to reoffend.

The DJ highlighted that in Ong Chee Eng v Public Prosecutor [2012] 3 SLR 776 (“Ong Chee Eng”) at [39], the High Court had observed that a “discount ought to have been given by the District Judge for the charges that dealt only with the splashing of the paint and the writing on...