Public Prosecutor v Wong Wing Hung

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 03 September 1999
• Date: 03 September 1999
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 145 of 1999
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Public Prosecutor

Plaintiff

and

Wong Wing Hung

Defendant

[1999] SGHC 234

Yong Pung How CJ

Magistrate's Appeal No 145 of 1999

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Sentencing–Forms of punishment–Preventive detention–Accused having numerous antecedents for crimes involving violence–Whether sentence of imprisonment appropriate–Whether normal limitations on sentencing in respect of offence relevant to preventive detention–Whether pre-sentencing report mandatory–Section 12 (2) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)

The respondent pleaded guilty in a district court for voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant by hitting a police officer with a chair. Although only 35 years of age, the respondent had already been charged and convicted 16 times, sentenced to a total of 15 years of imprisonment for crimes involving violence and had received altogether 25 strokes of the cane. The current offence was committed barely two months after he was last released from prison.

The district judge sentenced the respondent to nine months' imprisonment. The district judge rejected the Prosecution's request to impose preventive detention as he found it inappropriate, highlighting the fact that the maximum term of imprisonment for the offence in question was only five years whereas the minimum term for preventive detention was seven years. The Prosecution appealed against the sentence.

Held, allowing the appeal:

(1) The purpose of imposing preventive detention was to protect the public. If the offender by his history of criminal behaviour proved to be a menace to the society, he should be put away for the protection and safety of the community at large: at [9].

(2) The district judge erred in law and principle by drawing a comparison between the maximum term of imprisonment for the present offence with the minimum term of preventive detention. According to s 12 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed), preventive detention was imposed in lieu of an imprisonment term and was a distinct sentence. Normal limitations on sentencing did not apply: at [8] and [10].

(3) The respondent, despite his relative youth of 35 years had already accumulated a large number of criminal convictions and had shown little or no change for the better. His affinity to crime and aggression came close to an addiction and it was expedient for the protection of the public to take him out of circulation for the maximum possible period of 20 years: at [11] to [13].

(4) Pre-sentencing reports, such as preventive detention reports, were called for as a matter of practice and were not mandatory. The respondent was both physically and mentally suited for a sentence of preventive detention, and in order not to prolong the process by waiting for a preventive detention report, the usual procedure of calling for such a report was dispensed with: at [14].

Kua Hoon Chua v PP [1995] 2 SLR (R) 1; [1995] 2 SLR 386 (folld)

Yusoff bin Hassan v PP [1992] 2 SLR (R) 160; [1992] 2 SLR 1032 (folld)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 12 (2) (consd);s 12 (3)

Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 332

Kan Shuk Weng (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the appellant

Respondent in person.

Yong Pung How CJ

1 The respondent pleaded guilty to a charge under s 332 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) of voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant. The punishment prescribed under s 332 is imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with caning, or with any two of these punishments. The respondent was convicted and sentenced by District Judge Louis D'Souza to nine months' imprisonment.

2 The Public Prosecutor appealed against the...