Public Prosecutor v XMI (a minor)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 03 June 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] SGYC 2
• Court: Youth Court (Singapore)
• Parties: Public Prosecutor,XMI (a minor)

Public Prosecutor v XMI (a minor)

[2025] SGYC 2

Youth Arrest Case No 900004 of 2025

Public Prosecutor

XMI (a minor)

Youth Court

Patrick Tay Wei Sheng

Criminal Procedure - Dispositional Orders for Youth Offenders

DSP Vijay s/o R Prasad for the prosecution

The defendant in person

Philip Leong and Jasper Yap as advisers.

3 June 2025

District Judge Patrick Tay Wei Sheng:

1. The youth committed mischief by fire in furtherance of the common intention of two accomplices and himself. On 2 December 2024, they had set ablaze the door of an apartment and had scrawled “O$P$” in indelible ink on an adjacent wall. They 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. On 5 February 2024, the youth pleaded guilty to the offence in the Youth Court, which called for a probation suitability report to assist its formulation of dispositional orders for the youth. While that report was prepared, the court extended the bail that had been granted to the youth on conditions that included a curfew from 9:00 pm to 6:00 am and a requirement to attend school.

3. On 30 April 2025, a probation officer from the Ministry of Social and Family Development submitted the probation suitability report. Therein, she assessed the youth to have a “High” risk of re-offending. He led an “unbridled and unstructured lifestyle” marked by “chronic school absenteeism since 2017”, associated with negative peers, and minimised the effects of his actions. His family provided “inadequate supervision, permissive and neglectful parenting” that left unaddressed his behavioural issues. Given these factors, the probation officer concluded that the youth was unsuitable for community-based rehabilitation such as probation and instead recommended a 21-month placement at the Juvenile Rehabilitation Centre (the “JRC”) of the Singapore Boys’ Home.

4. The prosecution endorsed these recommendations and submitted that a 21-month placement in the JRC was in the best interests of the youth.

5. The youth and his parents asked he be placed on probation. The youth desired to reside with his family and promised to submit to electronic monitoring and the supervision of his parents to secure his compliance with a probation order. The parents of the youth aligned themselves with this position and were confident that the youth could comply with a probation order because they had “observed positive changes in him since the offence”.

6. Everyone thus accepted that rehabilitation was to be the predominant consideration and was in the best interests of the youth, whose welfare was paramount concern in these proceedings pursuant to 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. The youth was just 14 years of age. Focusing on his rehabilitation was justified given the characteristically impulsive nature of his adolescent decision-making. Further, society was keen on his reform given the years that he had ahead of him (see A Karthik v Public Prosecutor [2018] 5 SLR 1289 at [37]). 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 it 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 aims 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. As the Youth Court observed in Public Prosecutor v XML (a minor) [2025] SGYC 1 (“XML”) at [8], two conditions must exist for a probation order to be viable. First, the characteristics of the offender must render him amenable to community-based rehabilitation. 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 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 incumbent on the family of the offender to ensure that he remains on the straight and narrow. In the words of Choo Han Teck J in WLK v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGHCF 22 (“WLK”) at [12], “a disciplined home is essential”.

9. Given the characteristics of the youth and his home environment, I agreed with the prosecution and the probation officer that the structured environment of the JRC would best realise the rehabilitation of the youth.

10. First, the youth tended to disregard rules while in the community. His school records from 2017 to 2024 revealed unjustified absences for between 38% and 91% of each academic year. In the limited time that he spent in school, he was disruptive during lessons, had altercations with his peers, used profanities, and was frequently late. Outside school, he...