Public Prosecutor v XLL (a minor)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 16 April 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] SGYC 1
• Court: Youth Court (Singapore)
• Parties: Public Prosecutor,XLL (a minor)

Public Prosecutor v XLL (a minor)

[2025] SGYC 1

Youth Arrest Case No 900006 of 2025

Public Prosecutor

XLL (a minor)

Youth Court

Patrick Tay Wei Sheng

Criminal Procedure - Dispositional Orders for Youth Offenders

ASP Syed Humayun for the prosecution

The defendant in person

Morene Sim and Muhammad Dzulkifly as advisers.

16 April 2025

District Judge Patrick Tay Wei Sheng:

1. A youth committed mischief by fire in furtherance of the common intention of two accomplices and himself. The group had set ablaze the door and rug of an apartment and had written “O$P$” in indelible ink on an adjacent wall. And the group had done so in response to a job offer on a social media platform that promised payment of $2,000 upon the completion of these tasks.

2. The youth pleaded guilty to the offence in the Youth Court, which called for a probation suitability report to assist it in its formulation of dispositional orders in respect of the youth. While that report was prepared, bail was granted to the youth on conditions that included: (a) a prohibition on him meeting his accomplices; and (b) a requirement for him to continue attend school (collectively, the “Bail Conditions”).

3. Ms Haidah Sharin, a probation officer from the Ministry of Social and Family Development, prepared the probation suitability report. Therein, she assessed the youth to have a “High” risk of re-offending due to his propensity for taking risks, his anti-social attitudes (save for his continued association with negative peers), and his unwillingness to improve his lifestyle. She noted that the parents of the youth employed “permissive” parenting that facilitated an “unrestrained lifestyle” without “guidance, intervention and structure”. She thus concluded that the youth was ill-suited for such community-based rehabilitation as probation and recommended that the youth be placed in a Juvenile Rehabilitation Centre (a “JRC”) for 21 months.

4. The prosecution endorsed these recommendations, especially the proposal in the probation suitability report that the youth should embark upon a rehabilitation program at the JRC that comprised three sequential stages. The first stage of 3 months would introduce discipline and structure in his lifestyle. The next stage of 12 months would build his capacity for change and strengthen his support networks. The last stage of 6 months would re-integrate him into the community.

5. The youth and his parents submitted that he should nevertheless be placed on probation. The youth explained that he desired to reside with his family and promised to submit to electronic monitoring to secure his compliance with the terms of his probation. The parents of the youth aligned themselves with this position and promised to cooperate with the probation officer and to inform the authorities should the youth commit any further offences.

6. All the parties concurred that rehabilitation was the predominant consideration in these proceedings and was in the best interests of the youth, whose welfare was my paramount concern (see s 4(b) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1993 (2020 Rev Ed) (the “CYPA”). I agreed. The offence, although serious, was not grave. The harm caused was limited to a charred door and rug. The youth was only 13 years of age. The focus on his rehabilitation was justified given the characteristically impulsive nature of his adolescent decision-making. Further, society had a keen interest in his reform given the many years that he had ahead of him. Hence, what remained was for me to decide whether that rehabilitation would be realised better by placing him on probation or in the JRC.

7. As VK Rajah JA observed in Public Prosecutor v Mohammad Al-Ansari bin Basri [2008] 1 SLR(R) 449 (“Al-Ansari”) at [55], a probation order is a community-based dispositional order. Even as a probation order “seeks to protect society through the supervision to which the offender is required to submit, it both minimises the restrictions placed upon him and offers him the help of society in adjusting his conduct to its demands.” It “seeks to strengthen the offender’s resources so that he may become a more responsible member of the community, which must also play a part in rehabilitating him.”

8. Two conditions must exist for a probation order to be viable. First, the personal characteristics of the offender must render him amenable to community-based rehabilitation (see Public Prosecutor v Koh Wen Jie Boaz [2016] 1 SLR 334 (“Koh Wen Jie Boaz”) at [57]). Specifically, he must accept responsibility for his actions, desire to change for the better, and possess the self-discipline to bring that desire to fruition. Second, the offender must have adequate family support and supervision because probationary supervision takes place substantially in the natural setting of the offender and not in a closed institution. The probation officer is “never going to be able to supervise the offender closely on a day-to-day basis” (see Public Prosecutor v GCB (A Minor) [2019] SGYC 1 at [24]). It is thus...