Public Prosecutor v Ramlee and another action

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeYong Pung How CJ
Judgment Date05 August 1998
Neutral Citation[1998] SGHC 267
Plaintiff CounselAmarjit Singh (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
Date05 August 1998
Published date19 September 2003
Subject MatterWhether ground for revision of sentence of co-offenders,Review of sentence,Whether disparity serious enough for court to exercise revisionary powers,Disparity of sentences,Principal offender received shorter sentence of imprisonment on appeal,Sentencing,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Principal offender and co-offenders dealt with on different occasions
Docket NumberCriminal Revisions Nos 13 and 14 of 1998
Citation[1998] SGHC 267
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Year1998
Judgment:

YONG PUNG HOW CJ

These two criminal revisions were related. The respondent in Criminal Revision 13/98, Ramlee @Andi bin Arsad (Ramlee), and the respondent in Criminal Revision 14/98, Salleh, were jointly charged with six offences under s 57(1)(c) Immigration Act (Cap 133, 1997 Ed). They pleaded guilty and were dealt with separately. Ramlee was sentenced to three years` imprisonment and four strokes of the cane in respect of each of the six charges. Two of the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run consecutively so that his total sentence was six years` imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane. Salleh was sentenced to three years` imprisonment and three strokes of the cane in respect of each offence. Two of the sentences were ordered to run consecutively so that the total sentence was six years` imprisonment and 18 strokes of the cane. On the application of the DPP, I revised the sentence imposed on the two respondents. I now set out my reasons.

2. Brief facts

The two respondents were engaged by one Jumhan@ Permata (Jumhan) to assist him in conveying into Singapore six Indonesian nationals who were prohibited immigrants. He was paid 250,000 rupiah (S$100) by the six prohibited immigrants to convey them from Batam into Singapore using a motorised sampan. Jumhan promised each respondent a sum of S$40 on successful completion of the operation. Both the respondents and Jumhan were Indonesian nationals. All of them were arrested by the police coast guards when they unloaded the prohibited immigrants in Singapore.

3.Jumhan pleaded guilty and was convicted in the subordinate courts of six charges of engaging in the business or trade of conveying into Singapore Indonesian nationals, whom he knew or had reason to believe were prohibited immigrants, contrary to s 57(1)(c), punishable under s 57(1)(iii) of the Immigration Act. The prosecution pressed for a deterrent sentence. He was sentenced to undergo five years` imprisonment and ordered to receive four strokes of the cane on each of the six charges. Two of the sentences were ordered to run consecutively, so that the total sentence imposed was ten years` imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane. On appeal heard on 28 May 1998, the High Court allowed his appeal on the ground that the maximum terms of imprisonment imposed by the district court were manifestly excessive and reduced the sentence of imprisonment to two years on each charge. Two of the terms were ordered to run consecutively, so the total sentence was four years imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane.

4. The criminal revision

The DPP brought to the attention of the High Court in the course of the appeal that the sentences ordered to be imposed on the respondents were more severe than the sentences imposed on Jumhan, and applied for the sentences on the respondents to be revised.

5.The prescribed punishment in relation to s 57(1)(iii) is imprisonment for a term of not less than two years and not more than five years and, additionally, with not less than three strokes of the cane.

6.Under s 268 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), the High Court may exercise inter alia any of the powers conferred by s 256. Section 256 provides that in an appeal as to sentence, the court may reduce, enhance the sentence or alter the nature of the sentence. It is well established that the High Court would exercise its powers of revision in circumstances where there is some serious injustice. It must be shown `that there is something palpably wrong in the decision that strikes at its basis as an exercise of judicial power by the court below`: Ang Poh Chuan v PP [1996] 1 SLR 326 at p 330.

7.Where two or more offenders are to be sentenced for participation in the same offence, the sentences passed on them should be the same, unless there is a relevant difference in their...

To continue reading

Request your trial
67 cases
  • Sarjit Singh Rapati v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 2 February 2005
    ...as well. 63 It is a well-established principle that the courts should strive towards parity in sentencing. As I observed in PP v Ramlee [1998] 3 SLR 539 at Where two or more offenders are to be sentenced for participation in the same offence, the sentences passed on them should be the same,......
  • Whang Sung Lin v PP
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 12 February 2010
    ...281; [1998] 3 SLR 942 (folld) PP v Fernando Payagala Waduge Malitha Kumar [2007] 2 SLR (R) 334; [2007] 2 SLR 334 (refd) PP v Ramlee [1998] 3 SLR (R) 95; [1998] 3 SLR 539 (folld) PP v Sulaiman Damanik [2008] SGDC 175 (refd) PP v Tang Wee Sung [2008] SGDC 262 (refd) PP v Wang Chin Sing [2008]......
  • Jeffery bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 24 March 2009
    ...question is whether the principle of parity in sentencing was breached in this case and, if so, whether it was justified. In PP v Ramlee [1998] 3 SLR 539, Yong Pung How CJ held that the parity principle should be applied even though the sentences by themselves were not manifestly excessive.......
  • Mohamed Hiraz Hassim v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 1 February 2005
    ...Pte Ltd [1996] 1 SLR (R) 112; [1996] 1 SLR 573 (folld) PP v Nyu Tiong Lam [1995] 3 SLR (R) 788; [1996] 1 SLR 273 (folld) PP v Ramlee [1998] 3 SLR (R) 95; [1998] 3 SLR 539 (folld) Teo Hee Heng v PP [2000] 2 SLR (R) 351; [2000] 3 SLR 168 (folld) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2015, December 2015
    • 1 December 2015
    ...unless there is a relevant difference in their responsibility for the offence or their personal circumstance: Public Prosecutor v Ramlee[1998] 3 SLR(R) 95 at [7]. However, how, if at all, should the principle of parity be applied in cases where offenders have engaged in a common criminal en......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT