Sim Yeow Seng v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 01 June 1995
• Neutral Citation: [1995] SGHC 140
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 336 of 1994
• Date: 01 June 1995
• Year: 1995
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: David Lee (Ang & Lee)
• Citation: [1995] SGHC 140
• Defendant Counsel: Chia Wee Kiat (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Previous convictions,Benchmark sentences,Whether aggravating factor if conviction was for offence committed subsequent to the offence before the sentencing court,s 408 Penal Code (Cap 224),Sentencing,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing

The appellant pleaded guilty in the district court to the following charge:

You, Sim Yeow Seng, M/42 years, NRIC:S0026803H, are charged that you on or about 26 September 1990, at M/s Honest Manufactory at 11 Syed Alwi Road, Teck Heng Long Building #02-00, Singapore, being employed as a servant, to wit, a shipping clerk, and in such capacity were entrusted with dominion over certain property, to wit, a cash cheque for $7,777.27, belonging to the said M/s Honest Manufactory, committed criminal breach of trust of the aforesaid cheque and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 408 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

The district judge convicted the appellant upon his guilty plea and sentenced him to one year`s imprisonment. The present appeal was brought against sentence.

The appeal

In passing sentence on the appellant, the district judge noted that in the absence of aggravating circumstances, the usual punishment for a first offence under s 408 of the Penal Code, where the accused pleads guilty and where the sum involved lies between $5,000 and $10,000, is an imprisonment term of nine months coupled with a fine. In the present case, however, although the appellant had pleaded guilty, the district judge pointed out that he also had on record a conviction sustained in 1993 for criminal breach of trust. On that occasion an additional charge of cheating under s 420 had been taken into consideration on that occasion and the eventual sentence had been a fine of $5,000.

Having had regard to the appellant`s 1993 conviction, the district judge held that a sentence of one year`s imprisonment was appropriate. In his view:

Repeated acts of dishonesty for personal gain give rise to the implication that the person has a defect in character and a propensity for enrichment through illegal means. For such a person, it is the duty of the court to indicate strongly to him that his dishonest conduct is wrong and would be viewed with severity by the law and members of his community.

On appeal counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant`s previous conviction should not have been taken into account during the sentencing process. That conviction, so counsel argued, had been in respect of an offence which had been committed only subsequent to the commission of the offence for which the appellant was being sentenced by the district judge. In counsel`s submission, no authority existed to show that such prior convictions could be taken into account by a sentencing court.

In fact, the district judge referred in his grounds of decision to the case of R v Wilson , in which existed a factual situation virtually identical with that found in the...