Sim Chye Men v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Eric Tin Keng Seng
• Judgment Date: 19 September 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] SGMC 18
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 2002
• Citation: [2002] SGMC 18
• Court: Magistrates' Court (Singapore)

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

Sim Chye Men ("Sim") originally faced 16 charges for offences under s 5(3)(a) of the Betting Act (Cap. 21). After successful representations by the defence, the prosecution proceeded with 5 charges, and applied for the remaining 11 to be taken into consideration for the purpose of sentence, as per the schedule tendered (marked "A").

Plea of guilt

2 The 5 proceeded charges stated that Sim acted as a bookmaker by accepting bets to forecast the soccer result of the "World Cup" fixture of various matches at Blk 719 Jurong West Avenue 5, #03-66, Singapore, on various dates and time (MAC4868/02 marked "P1", MAC4870/02 marked "P2", MAC4871/02 marked "P3, MAC4874/02 marked "P4", and MAC4880/02 marked "P5"). Sim pleaded guilty to all 5 charges. He understood the nature and consequences of his plea. The prescribed mandatory punishments were highlighted to him.

Statement of Facts

3 Sim admitted to the Statement of Facts (marked "B") without any qualification. To summarise, on 15 June 2002 at about 1.40 pm, Sergeant Tan Teng Teck of the Gambling Suppression Branch, Criminal Investigation Department, together with a party of officers, armed with search warrant No. 59 of 2002, raided Sim’s residence at Blk 719 Jurong West Avenue 5, #03-66 for illegal bookmaking activities. Upon arrival, the house occupant refused to open the door. Force was used to gain entry. Therein, Sim and two others were found. A search was conducted in Sim’s presence and the following items were recovered and seized:

1. One folder containing some pieces of paper with entries;
2. Some pieces of paper with entries;
3. Three handphones;
4. One calculator;
5. Some pens.

4 Sim was placed under arrest. Investigations revealed that the pieces of paper seized were related to his soccer bookmaking activities. At his residence, between 12 pm to 7 pm on the dates below, Sim acted as a runner (defined as a "bookmaker" under section 2(1) of the Betting Act) by receiving and negotiating bets from punters who placed their bets to forecast the soccer result of "World Cup" fixtures for the following matches and value of bets:

Case	Date	Matches	Value of bets
MAC 4868/02	14 June 2002	Belgium vs. Russia Tunisia vs. Japan Poland vs. USA Portugal vs. South Korea	$298,700
MAC 4870/02	12 June 2002	Nigeria vs. England Sweden vs. Argentina Slovenia vs. Paraguay South Africa vs. Spain	$231,800
MAC 4871/02	11 June 2002	Senegal vs. Uruguay Denmark vs. France Saudi Arabia vs. Ireland Cameroon vs. Germany	$283,300
MAC 4874/02	8 June 2002	South Africa vs. Slovenia Italy vs. Croatia Brazil vs. China	$261,500
MAC 4880/02	2 June 2002	England vs. Sweden Paraguay vs. South Africa Argentina vs. Nigeria Spain vs. Slovenia	$257,500

Charges taken into consideration

5 After Sim was convicted on his plea of guilt, he admitted to 11 other offences of acting as a bookmaker and consented to have them taken into consideration for the purpose of sentence (charges marked "P6" to "P16" respectively).

Antecedents and Mitigation

6 Sim was a first offender. Counsel tendered a brief written mitigation plea (marked "C") highlighting the following points:

a. Sim pleaded guilty at the earliest available opportunity, admitted to the facts without reservation, and saved the court and prosecution considerable time in trying the case.

b. He has no previous conviction.

c. At 35 years old, Sim is married with a 4 year-old son and was not gainfully employed. He had an accident in 1984 and his right leg was one inch shorter. He worked in a steelmill until 1997 when he was retrenched and had been doing odd-jobs. He was the sole breadwinner. Due to the economic crisis, he found it difficult to look for a job. His wife was not working. He had to engage a maid to look after his 74 year old father who was paralysed after a stroke. Sim had to bear the maid’s salary, medical bills and other expenses. He therefore needed money to support his father, family and himself and got involved in football betting.

d. He was only a runner and earned a commission on the bets received.

e. He fully co-operated and confessed his wrongdoings to the police following his arrest. He regrets his misdeeds. He committed the offences in a moment of folly and indiscretion. He undertook not to repeat his mistake and never to re-offend.

f. He urged for a shorter default sentence as he could not pay any fines.

Sentencing framework

7 Section 20 of the Betting Act empowers a Magistrate’s Court to impose the full penalty or punishment in respect of any offence under the Act notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 68).

8 An offence under s 5(3) of the Betting Act attracts mandatory imprisonment up to 5 years, and mandatory fines of between $20,000 to $200,000. Parliament in amending the Betting Act in 1986 made it clear that this sentencing framework was designed to deter bookmakers and their agents: Singapore Parliamentary Report, Vol. 46, cols 723-8. The relevant sentencing considerations can be found in the book Sentencing Practice of the Subordinate Courts (2000 Ed.). At pp. 719-720, the learned authors indicated that due to the ease of commission of such offences, coupled with the difficulty of detection and proof of such offences, the sentencing basis is deterrence. The sentence for such offences are generally linked to the value of the bets, which gives an indication of the size of the operation.

Mitigating factors

9 Sim cooperated with the authorities. This was not challenged by the prosecution, and is a factor in his favour.

10 Sim had a prior clean record. That also stood in his favour.

11 While Sim had pleaded guilty instead of claiming trial, he was in fact caught red-handed by the raiding party in his own residence where incriminating exhibits were found. There can be little mitigating value in his plea of guilt under such circumstances: Wong Kai Chuen Philip v PP [1991] 1 MLJ 321.

12 Sim was a runner, not a mastermind or main operator. However, his role as a runner is not a mitigating factor. On the other hand, if he were involved at a higher level, that would have justified a higher sentence. It would be erroneous to think that a runner is an insignificant player for such operations. The main operators ultimately depend on the runners to receive and negotiate bets. The effective way to cripple and curtail illegal bookmaking operations is therefore to hit hard at and thereby deter those who serve the main...