Siauw Yin Hee v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 12 December 1994
• Neutral Citation: [1994] SGHC 284
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 194 of 1994
• Date: 12 December 1994
• Year: 1994
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: N Sreenivasan (Derrick Ravi & Pnrs)
• Citation: [1994] SGHC 284
• Defendant Counsel: Lau Wing Yum (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Defence of kleptomania induced by depression,Record of previous convictions and failed psychiatric treatment,Sentencing,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Record of similar convictions and psychiatric treatment,Whether six months' imprisonment manifestly excessive,Theft,Rehabilitative or custodial sentence,Forms of punishment,Need to protect public interest

The appellant pleaded guilty in the subordinate courts to a charge under s 380 of the Penal Code (Cap 224). Having been sentenced to six months` imprisonment, he appealed to this court against the sentence. I dismissed the appeal and now give my reasons in writing.

The facts

The charge against the appellant alleged that on 10 October 1993, he stole four packets of `Energizer` AA-sized dry cell batteries valued at $20.80 from Toa Payoh NTUC Supermarket. It appeared that whilst browsing at the supermarket, the appellant removed the batteries from a display rack and put them in his trouser pockets. A member of the supermarket staff observed him doing so and subsequently accosted him in the car park of the supermarket. After surrendering the batteries, the appellant was taken to the police station.

In the court below, the appellant pleaded guilty to the charge against him and was convicted accordingly. For sentencing purposes, the court was informed of the appellant`s antecedents, whereupon it was revealed that he had since 1985 been convicted of theft under s 380 of the Penal Code on no less than eight occasions. The odd feature, of course, was that on every occasion the items stolen were batteries. In respect of his first conviction, the appellant had been sentenced to one day`s imprisonment and a $500 fine. Since then the sentences had usually consisted of one day`s imprisonment together with a $2,000 fine, save for a conviction in 1987 in respect of which he was sentenced to two months` imprisonment.

A written plea in mitigation was presented on the appellant`s behalf by his counsel below. It informed the court that the appellant was married with three children and that he ran his own advertising agency. For the most part, however, it concentrated on the appellant`s history of depressive illness. Counsel attached to his mitigation plea three reports by consultant psychiatrist Dr Ang Peng Chye which stated that the appellant had been receiving treatment and counselling (although not continuously) from Dr Ang since January 1988. In Dr Ang`s opinion, the appellant suffered from depression which, when particularly acute during periods of personal stress, created in him an ` urge to shoplift `. He stole only batteries because they represented to him a certain childhood deprivation, stemming from his mother`s refusal, when he was a child, to provide him with batteries with which to operate his toys. When caught in the act of shoplifting, he...