Public Prosecutor v WQ (a minor)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Wong Li Tein
• Judgment Date: 29 February 2008
• Neutral Citation: [2008] SGJC 4
• Court: Juvenile Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2008
• Published date: 24 April 2008
• Plaintiff Counsel: INSP Ting Nge Kong
• Defendant Counsel: S.K Kumar
• Citation: [2008] SGJC 4

[EDITORIAL NOTE: The details of this judgment have been changed to comply with the Children and Young Persons Act and/or the Women's Charter].

29 February 2008

Magistrate Wong Li Tein:

1 On 4 February 2008, WQ, a female juvenile aged 15 years and 4 months (“the Juvenile”), was charged for one count of theft under section 379 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) as follows:

Charge

You, WQ, F/15 yrs old, P/P: XXXXXX, Indian national, are charged that you, on 2^nd day of February 2008 at or about 3.20pm, at Bugis Village Singapore, together with one B2 (F/20 yrs old) and in furtherance of the common intention of you all, did commit theft of the following items:

a) One black wallet

b) One EZ-link card

c) Cash S$50/-

with a total value of S$50/-, in the possession of one C (F/14 yrs old), and you have thereby committed and offence punishable under section 379 of the Penal Code Chapter 224 read with section 34 of the aforesaid Act.

2 According to the Statement of Facts, the Juvenile and B2 were spotted by the complainant, a police officer attached to Central Police Division, when he was conducting anti-crime patrol rounds at Bugis Village. The Juvenile and B2 were observed to be loitering around the area and behaving suspiciously. The complainant thus began to keep watch on them. During the period of observation, the Juvenile and B2 were seen looking into the bags of passers-by and on a few occasions would walk closely behind them.

3 After about 20 minutes, the complainant saw the Juvenile and B2 walking closely behind the victim, C. The Juvenile used her shawl to cover her right hand and stretched it to reach for C’s bag. B2 then used her body to try to conceal the Juvenile’s actions. However, nothing was taken. B2 then stretched out her right hand from under her shawl to reach for C’s bag. The Juvenile conversely used her body to try to block B2’s actions from being seen. After a while, the Juvenile and B2 walked quickly away from C.

4 The Juvenile and B2 walked to a shop along Bugis Village, whereupon the Juvenile was seen holding on to a black wallet in her hands. She then took out a S$50 note from it and gave it to B2. The complainant then moved in to detain the Juvenile and B2. B2 then slipped the S$50 note into her brassiere.

5 On arrest, the Juvenile was found in possession of the aforementioned black wallet containing an EZ-link card. B2 was searched and found to be in possession of the following items:

(a) Cash of S$112.00, including the aforementioned S$50 note;

(b) One broken razor blade;

(c) $0.80 worth of coins.

6 C subsequently confirmed that the black wallet, S$50 note and EZ-link card belonged to her.

7 The Juvenile admitted to the Statement of Facts without qualification and was found guilty as charged. In mitigation, she stated that she is from India and committed the offence with B2, who is her 20-year-old sister-in-law. She admitted that they have been stealing from other people as well and the razor blade that was found in B2’s possession was used to slash open bags for this purpose. Both her parents pleaded with the Court for leniency and claimed that they were tourists who were returning to India the following day.

8 In view of the fact that the Juvenile is a foreigner and should be dealt with expeditiously, I ordered for her to undergo short-term detention in the Singapore Girl’s Home (“SGH”), an Approved School for 4 months under section 44(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act (Cap. 38)(“CYPA”).

9 The Juvenile or the parent is appealing against the Order. These are the reasons for my decision.

Nature of the Offence

10 Court must take into account all the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender: Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Nuzaihan bin Kamal Luddin [2000] 1 SLR 34 at paragraph 16.

11 In this case, I noted that although the offence is that of simple theft, the modus operandi showed that it was clearly and carefully pre-meditated. The offence was committed on 2 February 2008, which was a Saturday. It is well known that Bugis Village is crowded with people on any given Saturday afternoon and is a popular tourist destination. On this occasion, the Juvenile acted in partnership with B2 by carefully observing the crowd and looking into the bags of passers-by before selecting their prey. When they finally did, they attempted not once, but twice, to pickpocket from the victim by concealing their actions with their shawls and working in concert with each other. This means that they are experienced and must have pick-pocketed from other unsuspecting victims before finally being arrested by the police.

Background of the Juvenile

12 The Juvenile is a foreigner on social visit pass. On the surface, she is a tourist on vacation, but the circumstances of the case give rise to the suspicion that a holiday was not the purpose of her visit to Singapore.

13 The Juvenile admitted that both she and B2 did, in fact, steal from other people before the arrest. When she was confronted by the complainant for committing the...