Sinniah Pillay v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 16 October 1991
• Date: 16 October 1991
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 3
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Sinniah Pillay

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[1991] SGCA 39

Yong Pung How CJ

,

Chan Sek Keong J

and

Chao Hick Tin J

Criminal Appeal No 3 of 1988

Court of Criminal Appeal

Criminal Law–Abetment–Causing grievous hurt–Intention to cause grievous hurt by use of acid–Sections 325 and 326 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)–Criminal Law–Complicity–Criminal conspiracy–Causing grievous hurt–Intention to cause grievous hurt by use of acid–Sections 325 and 326 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)–Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Charge–Particulars–Conspiracy and abetment–Accused not charged under the same Act as co-conspirators–Prosecution's prerogative to decide charge–Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Sentencing–Principles–Backdating–Discretionary power of court–Whether appellant eligible for discount on sentence

The appellant was convicted and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment for conspiracy and abetment to commit grevious hurt by means of a corrosive substance under s 326 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) (the “Code”). The co-conspirators had pleaded guilty to abetment and conspiracy to commit an offence under the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act (Cap 65, 1985 Rev Ed). On appeal, it was argued that the appellant did not have specific knowledge of the means by which grievous hurt had been caused and therefore did not have the requisite intention under s 326. The fact that the appellant was charged under a different Act from the co-conspirators was raised to substantiate this argument. It was also contended that the sentence by the trial judge was manifestly excessive, and that the trial judge was wrong in not backdating the sentence to the date of the appellant's remand.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) It was reasonable for the trial judge to have drawn the inference that the appellant knew that acid would be used in the attack. Although the appellant did not specify the means to be adopted to cause the grievous hurt and left it entirely to the discretion of the co-conspirators, what was done by the co-conspirators was within the scope of his instructions to cause grievous hurt to the deceased so that he would be sent to hospital: at [22] and [23].

(2) The fact that the appellant was charged under a different Act from that of the co-conspirators was not conclusive. A given set of facts could give rise to a number of different charges and it was the prerogative of the Prosecution to decide which charge to proceed with: at [24].

(3) Credit was given for a plea of guilty in sentencing because it tended to show remorse on the part of the accused and also because it saved the court and Prosecution time and expense. As the appellant had put the Prosecution to prove its case, neither factor could operate in favour of the appellant: at [27].

(4) The court's power to backdate a sentence of imprisonment was a discretionary power. The offence was a heinous one and caused the death of the victim. The trial judge had not erred in not giving the appellant a discount on the custodial sentence and not backdating it to the date of his arrest. The sentence was not manifestly excessive in view of the circumstances: at [28] and [29].

Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act (Cap 65, 1985 Rev Ed) s 4

Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 325, 326 (consd)

Gilbert Gray QC and Nathan Isaac (Nathan Isaac & Co) for the appellant

Chua Eng Hui (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the respondent.

Judgment reserved.

Chao Hick Tin J

(delivering the judgment of the court):

1 This was an appeal against conviction and sentence on a charge of conspiracy and abetment to commit grievous hurt under s 326 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) (“the Code”). At the conclusion of the hearing we dismissed the appeal and we now give our reasons.

2 The charge upon which the appellant was convicted was as follows:

That you between December 1984 and 4 July 1985 in Singapore, did engage with one Muhundan a/l K Kumaran, one Pitchay Rasoo, one K Gangadaran (deceased), one Vellusamy s/o Valliyappan, one Shamuganathan @ Shamuganathan a/l S Neelakandan, one Lopez Joseph Benny, one Stephen Raja Ratnam and one Lopez Xavier Legory Benny in a conspiracy to commit grievous hurt to one Ramasamy s/o Packrisamy and in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing, an act took place on 4 July 1985 at Taman Permata, Singapore, to wit, a quantity of formic acid was splashed on the said Ramasamy s/o Packrisamy by one or more of you, which act caused severe burns to his person resulting in his death, and you have thereby abetted the commission of an offence under s 326 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) which act was committed in consequence of your abetment and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 109 read with s 326 of the same Code.

3 He was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment.

4 The appellant was at the time of the offence a newspaper distributor. The victim was one P Ramasamy, then aged 64, who was the chairman and chief executive officer of the National...