Public Prosecutor v Syed Hamid bin A Kadir Alhamid

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chao Hick Tin JA
• Judgment Date: 16 September 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] SGCA 40
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 9 of 2002
• Date: 16 September 2002
• Year: 2002
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Bala Reddy (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Citation: [2002] SGCA 40
• Defendant Counsel: Respondent in person
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Respondent setting fire to HDB flat,Sentencing,Nature and objective of preventive detention,Considerations in determining whether to order preventive detention,Preventive detention,Conviction for committing mischief by fire,Whether order of preventive detention appropriate,Respondent's criminal career spanning 26 years,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Damage to flat and common corridor,Respondent imprisoned for total of 49 months,Whether comparison with length of respondent's previous imprisonment terms proper,s 12(2)(a) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68)

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

1 In this case, the prosecution appealed against the sentence imposed by the trial judge on the respondent, Syed Hamid bin A Kadir Alhamid, who was found guilty of committing an offence punishable under section 436 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224, which provides as follows:

Whoever commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, the destruction of any building which is ordinarily used as a place for worship, or for the administration of justice, or for the transaction of public affairs, or for education, or art, or for public use or ornament, or as a human dwelling, or as a place for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.

2. The appellant, who contended that the trial judge’s sentence of imprisonment for four years was manifestly inadequate in the circumstances of the case, asserted that an order of preventive detention under section 12(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code ("CPC") should have been made.

Background

3. At around 11 pm on 4 November 2001, the respondent returned to his flat at Block 38, Bedok South Road, #02-653. He could not enter his flat because there was a padlock on his gate. He called his mother, the deceased, to open the gate. When his mother, who was lying on her bed in the front bedroom, did not respond to his shouts, the respondent took a brick and threw it at her though the window louvres. Although the brick landed on his mother’s shoulder, she did not stir. The respondent, who became more angry, threw another brick at her but she still did not get up. The respondent then rolled some newspapers into a ball and threw the lighted object at his mother. It landed on her mattress, which caught fire.

4. A police officer, Sergeant Rohaizad bin Majnen, who lives five floors above the respondent’s flat, rushed down to investigate after he saw smoke emitting from a unit below. He saw the respondent standing outside his flat, smoking a cigarette. When questioned, the respondent said that his flat was on fire and that his mother was inside the flat.

5. The respondent’s mother’s body was found badly charred and lying on her burnt bed frame. The autopsy report stated that the cause of her death was unascertainable. All the same, fire was ruled out as the cause of the death of the respondent’s mother, who was 77 years old and suffering from diabetes, a lung infection and ischaemic heart disease with interstitial fibrosis, which could cause her to die suddenly.

6. The fire started by the respondent damaged the flat and the common corridor outside it. Repairs costing around $3,000 were carried out by the HDB and the East Coast Town Council.

The trial

7. The prosecution urged the trial judge to impose an order of preventive detention under section 12(2)(a) of the CPC on the respondent in view of his numerous previous convictions. The trial judge initially agreed that such an order was appropriate and sentenced the respondent to 14 years of preventive detention. At this juncture, the prosecution pointed out that section 12(3) of the CPC requires the court to consider the physical and mental condition of the offender and his suitability for preventive detention before imposing such a sentence. The trial judge accordingly called for a preventive detention report and the matter was adjourned for three weeks. The report concluded that this was a case where an order for preventive detention was appropriate.

8. After studying the report in question, the trial judge noted that the respondent’s terms of imprisonment ranged in the main from eight weeks to six months and were mostly for theft. He said that an order for preventive detention should not be made as it was too great a jump from sentences of six months to a period of incarceration ranging from seven to 20 years under a preventive detention order. He then sentenced the respondent to imprisonment for four years.

The appeal

9. To determine whether or not the appeal ought to be allowed, reference must first be made to section 12(2) of the CPC, which sets out the regime for preventive detention and provides as follows:

(2) 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; ….

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 his 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.

(Emphasis added)

10. A sentence of preventive detention is intended for habitual offenders, aged more than 30 years, whom the court considers to be too recalcitrant for reformation (see PP v Wong Wing Hung [1999] 4 SLR 329). Preventive detention ought to be imposed if the accused has shown that he is such a menace to society that he should be incarcerated for a substantial period of time (see PP v Perumal s/o Suppiah [2000] 3 SLR 308). While the court will consider the need for the public to be protected from physical bodily harm, offences against...