Sim Gek Yong v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 02 February 1995
• Neutral Citation: [1995] SGHC 27
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 327 of 1994
• Date: 02 February 1995
• Year: 1995
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ronald Ng (Ng Lee & Pnrs)
• Citation: [1995] SGHC 27
• Defendant Counsel: Francis Tseng (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether discount must always be given in respect of these factors -Need to balance the public interest with mitigating factors,What constitutes the 'worst case' scenario,Principles,Plea of guilty,Possibility that a more serious charge might have been brought against offender on same set of facts,'Worst possible type of case',Sentencing,Not a relevant factor in deciding sentence,Benchmark sentences,Maximum sentence,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Appeal,When maximum sentence prescribed for an offence may be imposed on offender,Absence of similar antecedents,Words and Phrases

The appellant was charged in the district court as follows:

You, Sim Gek Yong, male, 36 years, NRIC No S1311412/I, are charged that you, on or about 17 November 1994, between 9.30pm and 9.35pm, from Xilin Ave to the junction of Simei Road and Simei St 3, Singapore, in motor car SBH 5230 D, did obstruct officers of customs, Hoo Sen Kwi and Liew Chia Min in customs vehicle No SBB 4915 A, in the execution of their duties, to wit, by driving and using the said motor car to block and prevent the said customs vehicle from intercepting motor van No GH 6192 P which was conveying uncustomed goods, to wit, 1,970 cartons of assorted brands of duty-unpaid cigarettes, and you have thereby committed an offence under s 137(a) of the Customs Act (Cap 70) and punishable under s 137 of the same Act.

The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced by a district judge to nine months` imprisonment as well as a $5,000 fine (in default six months` imprisonment), this being the maximum punishment prescribed under s 137(a) of the Customs Act. The present appeal was brought against the sentence imposed. Having heard the submissions of counsel for the appellant and of the deputy public prosecutor, I dismissed the appeal and now give my reasons in writing.

The facts

The facts of the case are set out in the statement of facts to which the appellant admitted unreservedly in pleading guilty to the charge against him. Essentially, the appellant had agreed to assist a friend, one Toh Hai Cheow (Toh), in Toh`s plan to smuggle into Singapore cigarettes on which customs duty had not been paid (the duty-unpaid cigarettes). The smuggling activity was to be carried out on 17 November 1994. At about 7.30pm on that day, therefore, the appellant proceeded to Changi Coast Road in motor car SBH 52130 D. His task, as agreed with Toh, was to drive close to the van driven by Toh (in which the cigarettes were being conveyed) and to keep a lookout for customs vehicles.

While driving along Changi Coast Road, the appellant noticed Toh`s van being trailed by a car which he suspected to be a customs vehicle. As it turned out, his suspicions were well founded: the car was a customs vehicle carrying officers from the Customs Investigations Branch. The appellant accelerated his vehicle and overtook the customs vehicle along Xilin Ave, after which he intentionally slowed down. From Xilin Ave to Upper Changi Road East, he then manoeuvred his car by repeatedly swerving from one side of the road to the other, in such a way as to block the customs vehicle`s path. Eventually, however, Toh`s van was forced to stop at a red light, at which point one of the customs officers alighted from the customs vehicle and attempted to remove Toh`s ignition key through the window of the van. The officer failed to do so and Toh`s van sped off. The customs officer, then still clinging to the van window, was dragged for a short distance before falling off. The appellant too fled from the scene in his car, although he surrendered himself to the police four days after the incident.

The present appeal

On appeal, counsel for the appellant contended that the maximum sentence imposed by the district judge below was erroneous and manifestly excessive for the following reasons: first, because the district judge failed, in meting out sentence, to give any discount for the appellant`s act of voluntary surrender and his plea of guilt; secondly, because he failed also to take account of the fact that the appellant had no similar antecedents; thirdly, because the appellant`s role throughout the entire episode was that of a mere lookout, which role was not a sufficiently significant one to merit the imposition of the maximum sentence; and, finally, because the district judge erred in drawing a comparison between the appellant`s case and the case of an offence under s 353 of the Penal Code (Cap 224), which offence involves an assault or the use of criminal force on a police officer and which carries a maximum custodial sentence of two years.

Plea of guilt and absence of similar antecedents

The mitigating force of the appellant`s act of voluntary surrender and his guilty plea was in fact canvassed in the court below. The district judge pointed out that such factors had no mitigating effect where an accused had been caught `red-handed` and where a plea of guilt was practically speaking inevitable. On appeal before me counsel for the appellant made much of the fact that the...