Public Prosecutor v Wong Siu Fai

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 16 May 2002
• Date: 16 May 2002
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 26 of 2002
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Public Prosecutor

Plaintiff

and

Wong Siu Fai

Defendant

[2002] SGHC 107

Choo Han Teck JC

Criminal Case No 26 of 2002

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Sentencing–Whether proper to charge accused on two different charges arising from same incident–Whether to treat the two charges as single offence for purposes of sentencing–Factors to be considered and balanced against–Whether to backdate sentence on account of time already served

The accused (“Wong”) pleaded guilty to two charges under ss 354 and 377 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed). Both offences occurred at the same place, day, time, and on the same victim.

Held:

(1) There was nothing wrong in principle for charging an accused on two different charges arising from the same incident if the facts indicated that distinctly different offences were committed in the course of a single transaction. This was borne out by s 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed): at [3].

(2) The two charges ought to be considered as part of a single offence for purposes of sentencing. Wong's offence was unitary in nature as the two acts occurred at virtually the same time and Wong violated the same part of the victim's body. Further, the court considered the child's age, sex, the manner and duration in which the offence was committed, Wong's previous conviction for outrage of modesty, and the absence of a planned modus operandi given his intoxicated state at the time of the offence. The last two factors were given their due weight and balanced against the circumstances and age of the victim: at [5] and [6].

(3) Wong was sentenced to one day's imprisonment for the first charge and six years' imprisonment for the second charge. Both charges were to run concurrently from the date of conviction. The sentence was not backdated as the five months' imprisonment he already served should be part of the punishment given the circumstances of the case: at [7].

[Observation: Bearing in mind that criminal cases always varied because no two offenders nor their victims, nor the circumstances, were alike, any sentencing guideline from a superior court must always be regarded as a most important factor especially in connecting all the broad clusters of similarities, but must not be taken as an indication that having done so, the individual facts and circumstances of the case need not be studied with the view to either varying upwards or downwards from the norm: at [6].

It was inappropriate to fill a single charge with two offences such that the accused did not know which one he had to meet (a procedural irregularity known as duplicity) or to create two charges from what was essentially a single offence - where the line was to be drawn between these two types of cases depended on the facts and evidence in each case. It would be unfair to leave the offender with a record for having committed two offences if what was done was...