Sukla Lalatendu v Public Prosecutor and another matter

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Sundaresh Menon CJ
• Judgment Date: 03 September 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] SGHC 189
• Plaintiff Counsel: The appellant in MA 9352/2017 and respondent in CM 12/2018 in person
• Docket Number: Magistrate’s Appeal No 9352 of 2017
• Date: 03 September 2018
• Hearing Date: 03 April 2018
• Subject Matter: Retraction of plea,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Appeal,Plea of guilty
• Published date: 06 September 2018
• Defendant Counsel: Anandan Bala and Chin Jincheng (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Citation: [2018] SGHC 189
• Year: 2018

Sundaresh Menon CJ: Introduction

In criminal appeals, it is unfortunately the case that allegations of impropriety are sometimes made against the judges and judicial officers who had presided over the matters in question in the courts below. Occasionally, the allegations may have some basis and, in such cases, it may be found that they have arisen out of some genuine miscommunication or misunderstanding or conceivably even from improper conduct of the matter. More commonly, however, such allegations are borne out of desperation and are contrived efforts on the part of the accused to avoid a conviction and/or sentence that was appropriately imposed. Whatever the case may be, appellate courts need to be especially careful in dealing with these allegations. While due weight should be given to the policy of finality and the need to prevent an abuse of the court’s processes, the prudent approach in dealing with such cases is to carefully consider the allegations and their basis to assess whether they merit closer scrutiny, so that any miscarriage of justice may be promptly corrected if the allegations are borne out, or if they are not, then the relevant appeal or application may be dismissed, if necessary with appropriate observations. It is only in this way that the hard-won reputation and standing of our judiciary can be vigorously protected.

This appeal presented just such a situation. Allegations were made against a district judge as to matters which transpired in chambers and this formed the basis of the accused’s application to retract his plea in subsequent appellate proceedings that came before me. Having closely examined the facts, I found that the allegations were wholly unmeritorious and accordingly disallowed the retraction. I then considered and dismissed the accused’s appeal against the sentence imposed. I provided brief reasons for my decision at the time I disposed of the matter and now elaborate on my grounds of decision.

Background The present charges

The accused, Sukla Lalatendu (“the Accused”), was a 42-year-old Indian national and a Singapore Permanent Resident at the time of the offences. He was also the owner of a car insurance company. He faced a total of three charges, all of which were for the offence of theft in dwelling under s 380 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“PC”) which provides as follows:

Theft in dwelling-house, etc.

380. Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Two of the three charges were proceeded with, and the Accused was convicted on the Statement of Facts, the relevant extracts of which may be summarised as follows: First charge: On 27 April 2017, the Accused committed theft in dwelling of a “Logitech Spotlight Presentation Remote” valued at $169.00 from a Popular bookstore at United Square Shopping Mall (“United Square”). The bookstore’s surveillance footage showed the Accused behaving suspiciously at the location where the remotes were kept. Subsequent investigations revealed that at or about 6.13pm that day, the Accused dishonestly took a remote which was displayed on a shelf in the bookstore and placed it in a plastic bag that he was carrying. He then left the bookstore with the remote without paying for it. United Square is a building used for the custody of property, and the stolen remote was taken out of the possession of the bookstore manager. There was no mention in the Statement of Facts of whether the stolen remote was subsequently recovered. Second charge: On 1 May 2017, the Accused committed theft in dwelling of a “Samsung Gear 360 Globe handheld camera” valued at $348.00 from a Samsung Experience Store at No 3 Gateway Drive Westgate (“Westgate”). The store’s surveillance footage showed that at or about 7.40pm that day, the Accused had taken the camera and left the store without making payment for it. Subsequent investigations revealed that the Accused had gone to Westgate at about 7.15pm that day. He entered the Samsung Experience Store and noticed the camera which was left unlocked on one of the shelves. The Accused then decided to steal the camera. He placed the camera in his bag and left the store without paying for it. At the material time, the Accused had with him a sum of between $150 and $200 in cash and a credit card. The stolen camera was subsequently recovered from the Accused and no sales record was registered for it at the store. Westgate is a building used for the custody of property, and the stolen camera was taken out of the possession of the complainant who was the manager of the store.

The Accused consented to a third charge of theft in dwelling on 6 May 2017 of a “Hue Tap Switch” valued at $89.00 from a store called Harvey Norman located at Millennia Walk being taken into consideration (“TIC”) for the purpose of sentencing.

The antecedents of the Accused

The Accused had two sets of convictions prior to the present offences, one set of which was for property-related offences:

Date of conviction	Offence	Provision	Sentence
19 Jun 2009	Criminal intimidation	S 506 PC	$1,800 fine (rendered spent on 2 Dec 2016)
Using threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour with intent	S 13A(1)(a) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Cap 184, 1997, Rev Ed) (“MOA”)
Using threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour within the hearing or sight of any person	S 13B(1)(a) MOA	TIC
30 Nov 2016	Theft	S 379 PC	$2,000 fine
Theft	S 379 PC
Theft	S 379 PC	TIC

Notably, the set of convictions dated 19 June 2009 were spent convictions. Section 7E of the Registration of Criminals Act (Cap 268, 1985 Rev Ed) (“ROCA”) provides for the legal effect of such convictions. Amongst other things, s 7E(1) of the ROCA deems the offender, in certain circumstances, to have had “no record” of his convictions which are spent or treated as spent. However, the protective provisions in ss 7E(1)(a) and (c) of the ROCA are subject to the caveat in s 7E(2)(c) and therefore do not extend to “any proceedings before a court” or to “any decision by a court, including any decision as to sentence”. On that basis, it would not be improper for me to mention or consider the Accused’s convictions dated 19 June 2009. Nor was it improper for the district judge below (“the DJ”) to have done the same in his grounds of decision (at [20] and [27]). The Accused did not submit otherwise. In any event, no material weight could be placed on these convictions given the lapse of time and the fact that they did not concern property-related offences.

The proceedings below

The events which transpired in the proceedings below were heavily disputed. I set them out briefly here and will elaborate on them later in this judgment.

Proceedings against the Accused were initiated in the State Courts on 19 May 2017. On 30 October 2017, the DJ conducted a pre-trial conference (“the 30 October PTC”) and saw both the Accused and a deputy public prosecutor, Ms Lim Yu Hui (“DPP Lim”), in chambers. The Accused was unrepresented at that time, and he continued to act in person throughout the course of the proceedings below as well as in the appeal before me.

On 8 November 2017, a hearing was conducted in open court (“the 8 November PG Hearing”) where the Accused pleaded guilty to the two proceeded charges and consented to the third charge being TIC for the purpose of sentencing. The DJ then imposed the following sentences:

Charges under s 380 of the PC	Items stolen	Sentence imposed
First charge	“Logitech Spotlight Presentation Remote” valued at $169.00	2 weeks’ imprisonment
Second charge	“Samsung Gear 360 Globe handheld camera” valued at $348.00	3 weeks’ imprisonment
Third charge	“Hue Tap Switch” valued at $89.00	TIC
Aggregate Sentence	3 weeks’ imprisonment (the sentences were ordered to run concurrently)

On 22 November 2017, which was the date the Accused was supposed to commence serving his sentence, he appeared before the DJ and sought a stay of execution pending appeal (“the 22 November Stay Hearing”).

On 2 January 2018, the DJ released his grounds of decision: see Public Prosecutor v Sukla Lalatendu [2018] SGDC 6 (“GD”). I will discuss this in further detail below.

The proceedings on appeal

On 21 November 2017, the Accused filed a Notice of Appeal stating that he was dissatisfied with the sentence imposed by the DJ. However, in his Petition of Appeal dated 17 January 2018, the Accused raised several arguments which did not relate to the sentence imposed, including that he had only pleaded guilty because “of the record promises and threats [sic]”, and that he had been “denied a constitutional right to counsel”.

The Accused subsequently tendered three sets of submissions dated 14, 21, and 28 March 2018, which I will refer to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Submissions respectively. The submissions focused primarily on his claim that even though he had not committed the offences, he had pleaded guilty to the charges because “he was misguided by the [DJ] and so as not to drag the case unnecessarily”. In the submissions, he also made several factual allegations about what the DJ had told him at the 30 October PTC. Although the Accused did not expressly state that he wished to retract his plea of guilt or file any application for criminal revision for that purpose, his intention to do just that seemed clear to me.

At the hearing before me on 3 April 2018, the Accused orally confirmed that he was seeking to retract his plea of guilt that had been taken at the 8 November PG Hearing. Anticipating this, the...