Public Prosecutor v See Li Quan Mendel

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Valerie Thean J
• Judgment Date: 30 October 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] SGHC 255
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 16 of 2019
• Year: 2019
• Published date: 02 November 2019
• Hearing Date: 16 September 2019
• Plaintiff Counsel: Gail Wong and Sheryl Yeo (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Ng Shi Yang and Siraj Shaik Aziz (Criminal Legal Aid Scheme)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Offences,Rape,Robbery and gang-robbery,Theft,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing
• Citation: [2019] SGHC 255

Valerie Thean J: Introduction

On 16 September 2019, the accused pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, the following three charges: one charge of robbery by night with common intention under s 392 read with s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”) (“the 1st Charge” or “the Robbery Charge”); one charge of rape under s 375(1)(a) of the Penal Code, punishable under s 375(2) of the Penal Code (“the 2nd Charge” or “the Rape Charge”); and one charge of theft in dwelling with common intention under s 380 read with s 34 of the Penal Code (“the 3rd Charge” or “the Theft Charge”).

The accused admitted to eight other charges and consented to having these charges taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing (“the TIC Charges”). The TIC Charges concerned the offences of robbery by day, cheating or attempted cheating, theft in dwelling, forgery and wilful trespass.

After considering the accused’s mitigation plea, the aggravating factors, the sentencing precedents, the parties’ submissions, the TIC Charges and the time spent by the accused in remand, I imposed the following sentences: for the 1st Charge, the mandatory minimum sentence of three years’ imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane. for the 2nd Charge, six years and nine months’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane. for the 3rd Charge, three months’ imprisonment.

The terms of imprisonment for the 2nd Charge and the 3rd Charge were ordered to run consecutively, with the term of imprisonment for the 1st Charge to run concurrently with the 2nd Charge. In the result, the aggregate sentence was seven years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. The accused has appealed against the sentences imposed and I furnish the grounds of my decision.

Facts

The material facts are as follows. The accused is presently 19 years old and was 17 years of age at the time of the offences. The 1st and 3rd Charges and six of the TIC Charges also concerned two co-offenders, one Yong Dun Zheng Benjamin (“Yong”) and one Chow Chia Suan (“Chow”). They were 22 and 23 years old respectively at the time of the offences.

In July 2017, the accused was acquainted with Chow, who then introduced the accused to her boyfriend, Yong. The trio became close friends. Around August 2017, they discussed possible ways to make money. They decided to steal money from sex workers, targeting in particular foreign sex workers, as they believed that they would be less likely to report their offences to the police.

The trio’s plan entailed the following steps. Obtaining the sex workers’ contact details from online sites, they would offer up to $900 for them to provide sexual services at either the accused’s or Yong’s residence. They would employ one of the following two methods in order to steal or rob the victim: The first method was to steal from the victim’s bag while she was in the toilet or shower. The second method was to stage an argument in front of the victim. Briefly, the accused or Yong would pretend to be a customer who had engaged the victim. The other two co-offenders would turn up sometime later and pretend to be loan sharks. They would demand from the victim payment of the “customer’s” debts.

The Prosecution referred to the first method as the “shower method” and the second method as the “loan shark method”. The 1st Charge involved the loan shark method. The 2nd Charge involved a rape that happened after the events of the 1st Charge. The 3rd Charge involved the shower method. I turn now to the facts of each charge.

The Robbery Charge (the 1st Charge)

The victim of the Robbery Charge and the Rape Charge, [V1], was 53 years old at the material time. [V1] listed her sexual services online and also brokered engagements for other sex workers.

On 1 October 2017, the accused contacted [V1] to provide sexual services at his residence. However, [V1] instructed another sex worker instead to go to the accused’s residence, and who in turn failed to show up. The accused was angered and wanted to take revenge against [V1].

On 2 October 2017, using Chow’s phone, the accused offered [V1] $900 for sexual services at Yong’s residence (“the Unit”). The large sum of money offered was so that [V1] would take up the engagement herself.

[V1] arrived at the Unit at about 10.05pm on 2 October 2017. Pursuant to the loan shark method, Yong received [V1] at the door, while the accused and Chow hid themselves out of sight. Sometime later, the accused and Chow banged the main door to pretend that they were entering from outside the unit. They then entered the bedroom. The accused held a rod which he hit against the wall, and had a chopper tucked behind him.

The accused pretended to scold Yong and “demand” the money which he allegedly owed, while “threatening” him with the rod. The rod was also passed to Chow, who pointed it threateningly at [V1]. It was at this point where the accused also took out the chopper. [V1] pleaded with the accused and Chow to let her leave. However, they shouted at her and told her to pay Yong’s debts.

The accused then pulled [V1]’s bag away from her. Pointing the chopper at her, he shouted at her not to move. [V1] was frightened and did as she was told. The accused handed the bag to Chow who searched through the items within. When [V1] attempted to walk over to see what Chow was doing, the accused grabbed her neck and pushed her against the wall. Although [V1] pulled his hand away, the accused then pointed the chopper at her face again and shouted at her not to move and to squat down. [V1] was very scared and sat down.

In furtherance of the common intention of the trio, Chow dishonestly removed the following items, with a total value of $763, from [V1]’s handbag (“the Items”): cash amounting to $100; one Samsung Galaxy A5 mobile phone valued at $550; one Samsung J1 Ace mobile phone valued at $100; and one opened packet of cigarettes valued at $13.

The Rape Charge (the 2nd Charge)

After the Items were removed from her handbag, [V1] told the accused that she wished to return home. The accused told her to remove all her clothes before he would allow her to do so. [V1] asked the accused why she had to do so and the accused shouted at her again, asking if she wanted to return home. When [V1] replied that there were many people at the Unit, the accused told Chow and Yong to leave the room. He then closed the door and directed [V1] to remove her clothes in a threatening tone while still holding onto the chopper. [V1], out of fear, removed all her clothes except for her shorts. The accused then shouted at her again and told her to remove all her clothes.

While she stood completely naked, the accused put the chopper on the floor and started to remove his clothes. When [V1] began to put her clothes back on, the accused picked up the chopper again. He demanded to have sex with [V1] and threatened that he would not let her leave the Unit unless she complied. [V1] was scared as she believed that the co-offenders were outside, and the accused would harm her if she did not comply. Out of fear, she did not dare to refuse him and asked him not to ejaculate into her.

The accused directed [V1] to lie down on the floor next to the bedframe. He placed the chopper down and removed his clothes. He then wore a condom which was found in [V1]’s handbag. Next, he went on top of [V1] and penetrated her vagina with his penis without her consent. The accused ejaculated into the condom five to ten minutes later before withdrawing. He then stood up and dressed himself.

[V1] quickly dressed herself and was told by the accused to leave. The co-offenders returned to the room, but did not know that the accused had raped [V1]. Chow left [V1]’s bag on the floor, and [V1] then realised that the Items were missing. She asked for the return of her cash and mobile phones but the accused told her to leave while pointing the chopper at her. When she returned home, [V1] made a police report. The accused and the co-offenders were arrested the following day at the accused’s residence.

The Theft Charge (the 3rd Charge)

The Theft Charge related to a separate incident from the Robbery Charge and the Rape Charge. The facts pertaining to the Theft Charge occurred sometime in September 2017, before the facts pertaining to the other two charges occurred.

The victim, [V2], was 27 years old at the material time. She advertised her massage and sexual services online. Chow and Yong used Chow’s phone to contact and engage her for sexual services at the accused’s residence.

When [V2] arrived at the accused’s residence, he represented himself as the person who had engaged her services and offered her $1,500 to keep him company for the entire day. [V2] agreed and the accused paid her $600 which she kept in her wallet. [V2] and the accused then had consensual sex.

Thereafter, [V2] went to the toilet, leaving her handbag unattended in the living room of the accused’s residence. She did not know that Yong and Chow were at the accused’s residence, along with one Wong Jin Sheng (“Wong”). In furtherance of the common intention of his accomplices, Wong dishonestly opened [V2]’s handbag and stole $670. Yong, Chow and Wong left the house, leaving the accused and [V2] behind.

[V2] did not realise that her money was stolen. After they washed up, the accused invited [V2] to join him for food, and promised to pay her the remaining $900 after they had eaten. She agreed. They then proceeded to a car in which Yong, Chow and Wong were already in, and the accused drove the group to Upper Thomson Road. Chow and [V2] alighted before the group. While [V2] was ordering food, Chow made an excuse to leave. When the food arrived and [V2] opened her wallet to pay for the food, she realised that all the cash in her wallet, totalling $670, was missing. She was unable to contact the accused who spent the $670 with the accomplices.

...