Sim Yeow Kee v PP
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Sundaresh Menon CJ,Chao Hick Tin JA,See Kee Oon JC |
Judgment Date | 29 September 2016 |
Neutral Citation | [2016] SGHC 209 |
Published date | 06 October 2016 |
Date | 29 September 2016 |
Year | 2016 |
Hearing Date | 12 July 2016 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Irving Choh and Melissa Kor (Optimus Chambers LLC) |
Defendant Counsel | Jerald Foo (Cavenagh Law LLP) as amicus curiae in Magistrate's Appeal No 9135 of 2015,Alina Chia (Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP) as amicus curiae in Magistrate's Appeal No 9140 of 2015.,Mohamed Faizal, Zhuo Wenzhao, Tan Wee Hao and Randeep Singh (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Citation | [2016] SGHC 209 |
Docket Number | Magistrate's Appeals Nos 9135 and 9140 of 2015 |
Magistrate’s Appeal No 9135 of 2015 (“MA 9135/2015”) is an appeal against sentence brought by the offender, Sim Yeow Kee (“Sim”). Sim pleaded guilty to three charges (see [5] below) on 21 July 2015, and was sentenced to a total of seven years’ corrective training (“CT”) on 11 August 2015. The written decision of the District Judge dated 4 September 2015 is reported as
Magistrate’s Appeal No 9140 of 2015 (“MA 9140/2015”) is an appeal against sentence brought by the offender, Loi Wenda (“Loi”). Loi pleaded guilty to seven charges (see [7] below) on 28 July 2015, with 12 other charges being taken into consideration for sentencing purposes, and was sentenced to a total of five years’ CT and 12 strokes of the cane on 18 August 2015. The matter was heard by the same District Judge who heard Sim’s case (“the DJ”), and his written decision dated 15 September 2015 is reported as
The immediate issue before us in MA 9135/2015 and MA 9140/2015 (“these Appeals”) is whether the respective sentences imposed on Sim and Loi (“the Appellants”) are manifestly excessive. This in turn brings into play the interaction between the CT regime and the regime of normal imprisonment, which we shall hereafter refer to as “regular imprisonment” where appropriate, to distinguish it from CT and other forms of incarceration that exist under Singapore’s penal framework. More specifically, what we have to consider is whether, in respect of an offender who satisfies the statutorily-prescribed technical requirements to be sentenced to CT, the court should impose a sentence of CT or one of regular imprisonment in view of two major changes made in 2014 to the latter regime, namely, the implementation of the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme (“the MAS”) and the Conditional Remission Scheme (“the CRS”). As this underlying issue is pertinent to our decision on both of these Appeals, we heard them together.
Background MA 9135/2015Sim is a 56-year-old male. On 6 May 2015 at 4.45pm, he was arrested at the Royal Sporting House store in Tampines Mall. He had taken two pairs of “Adidas” shorts valued at $120 from a display rack, put them in a plastic bag and then left the store without paying for them at 4.15pm. It was discovered during the investigations following his arrest that he had also previously stolen a bottle of “Chanel” perfume from the Isetan store at Tampines Mall on 12 May 2014. The urine samples that were procured from Sim after his arrest contained evidence of the consumption of morphine, a specified drug listed in the Fourth Schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the MDA”). Sim admitted to consuming heroin in a male toilet at Tampines Mall sometime in the afternoon on 6 May 2015.
The three charges which Sim pleaded guilty to (“Sim’s Charges”) are summarised in Table 1 below:
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
Sim’s antecedents over the years (“Sim’s Antecedents”) are summarised in Table 2 below:
Loi is a 28-year-old male. The seven charges which Loi pleaded guilty to (“Loi’s Charges”) are set out in Table 3 below:
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
Eight other Harassment charges and four other Urine Test charges were taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing.
The Harassment charges against Loi relate to one instance where he abetted the harassment of debtors on behalf of an unlicensed moneylender (one “Sam”) by instructing his friend to splash red paint on the door of a debtor’s house and write the phrase “… O$P$ [owe money, pay money]” on the wall, and three other instances where Loi himself splashed the doors of the houses of Sam’s debtors with either red paint or diluted soya sauce.
Loi was arrested on 12 March 2015 at Lavender Mass Rapid Transit station on suspicion of having consumed a controlled drug. His urine samples were found to contain methamphetamine, a specified drug under the MDA, and he admitted to having consumed “Ice”. At the material time, Loi was under a compulsory 24-month drug supervision order issued pursuant to reg 15 of the MDA Regulations. The period of supervision was from 18 September 2013 to 17 September 2015. In this connection, Loi had failed to turn up for his urine test on 12 May 2014 and 2 March 2015 without any valid reason.
Loi’s antecedents over the years (“Loi’s Antecedents”) are summarised in Table 4 below:
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
As the Prosecution highlighted, Loi committed 173 previous offences over a period of just slightly more than a decade.
The DJ’s decision MA 9135/2015 The DJ called for a pre-sentencing CT suitability report on Sim (“Sim’s CT report”) to assess whether he was suitable to undergo CT “based on [his] seemingly recalcitrant criminal behaviour” (see GD 1 at [9]). After considering Sim’s CT report and the circumstances of the case, the DJ imposed a sentence of seven years’ CT. The DJ’s reasons for imposing this sentence can be summarised as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Public Prosecutor v Ibrahim bin Bajuri
...pressed for 5 years’ Corrective Training. The formative arc of Corrective Training (“CT”) was traced in Sim Yeow Kee v Public Prosecutor [2016] SGHC 209, where the 3-Judge Panel laid out an analytical framework for CT. At its heart, this framework balances a melange of sentencing principles......
-
Ng Kean Meng Terence v PP
...for something in statute, “the court is not entitled to ignore its existence” (see Sim Yeow Kee v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2016] 5 SLR 936 at [84]). There are at least two issues which must be considered here. The first is whether the statutory aggravating factors are themselve......
-
Public Prosecutor v Ho Chai Sng Stephen
...would further motivate the accused to reform in order to qualify for the release on licence (“ROL”) scheme (see Sim Yeow Kee v PP [2016] SGHC 209 for a discussion of the quantitative difference between corrective training and regular imprisonment at [17]). It was also noted that the accused......
-
Public Prosecutor v Low Ji Qing
...of escalation. I employed the term when delivering the judgment of the High Court in Sim Yeow Kee v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2016] 5 SLR 936 (“Sim Yeow Kee”) at [99(a)], but this was no more than a reformulation of the longstanding principle that specific deterrence may justify......
-
ENLARGED PANELS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SINGAPORE
...Public Prosecutor v Ng Sae Kiat [2015] 5 SLR 167; Chew Soo Chun v Public Prosecutor [2016] 2 SLR 78; Sim Yeow Kee v Public Prosecutor [2016] 5 SLR 936; Koh Yong Chiah v Public Prosecutor [2017] 3 SLR 447; Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung [2017] 4 SLR 474; TUC v TUD [2017] 4 SLR 877; Chinpo......
-
SENTENCING REFORM IN SINGAPORE
...(accessed 22 May 2017). 35 [2017] SGHC 178. 36 Cap 93, 2001 Rev Ed. 37 [2017] 3 SLR 447. 38 Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed. 39 [2016] 5 SLR 936. 40 Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed. 41 Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed. 42 [2016] 2 SLR 78. 43 Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed. 44 [2015] 1 SLR 1081. 45 Cap 93, 2001 Rev Ed. 46[2014] 4 SLR ......
-
Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
...1 Lea Tool and Moulding Industries Pte Ltd v CGU International Insurance plc [2000] 3 SLR(R) 745 at [16]. 2 [2017] 5 SLR 946. 3 [2016] 5 SLR 936; see also discussion in (2016) 17 SAL Ann Rev 382 at 418–419, paras 14.93–14.96. 4 Public Prosecutor v Ong Say Kiat [2017] 5 SLR 946 at [22]–[23].......
-
Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
...82 Gan Chai Bee Anne v Public Prosecutor [2019] 4 SLR 838 at [39]. 83 Gan Chai Bee Anne v Public Prosecutor [2019] 4 SLR 838 at [74]. 84 [2016] 5 SLR 936 at [99]. 85 [2019] 5 SLR 769. 86 Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed. 87 Public Prosecutor v Low Ji Qing [2019] 5 SLR 769 at [56]. 88 Public Prosecutor ......