Tan Ngin Hai v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 01 June 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] SGHC 122
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 325 of 2000
• Date: 01 June 2001
• Published date: 07 November 2003
• Year: 2001
• Plaintiff Counsel: Thomas Tham Kok Leong and Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran (Thomas Tham & Co)
• Citation: [2001] SGHC 122
• Defendant Counsel: Jaswant Singh (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Persistent offenders,Theft of $1.10,Sentencing,Whether sentence of eight years' preventive detention manifestly excessive,Long history of criminal behaviour

: This was an appeal on sentence only.

The appellant claimed trial in the court below to a charge of theft under s 379 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) and one of fraudulent possession of a car key under s 35(1) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Cap 184, 1997 Ed). He was acquitted of the latter charge but convicted of the former and sentenced to eight years` preventive detention. At the end of the hearing before me, I dismissed his appeal against sentence and now give my reasons.

Brief facts

In the early morning of 10 April 2000, patrolling police officers Sgt Muhammad Fazli bin Ismail and Cpl Ow Gim Peng received a message that a male Chinese had been spotted opening vehicle doors in the car park of Block 106 Aljunied Crescent. The two policemen responded promptly to the message and headed for the scene immediately.

Upon arrival, the officers found the appellant standing next to the opened front passenger door of a white-coloured van. They approached the appellant and asked him if he owned the van or otherwise worked for the company which owned it. The appellant replied in the negative to both questions. The officers then searched the appellant and found some coins and notes on him, which moneys he told the officers were his. He was also found to be holding a vehicle key.

Subsequently, the owner of the van was contacted and arrived at the scene. Upon inspecting the inside of the van, the owner told the police officers that some coins which he had placed in a compartment below the radio were missing. When shown the coins found on the appellant, the owner of the van identified a one-dollar coin and a ten-cent coin as belonging to him. The appellant was subsequently arrested and charged for theft of a sum of $1.10 for which he was convicted in the court below and sentenced to eight years` preventive detention.

The appeal

Before me, counsel for the appellant submitted that the sentence was manifestly excessive for a loot of only $1.10 and contended that the district judge had erred in failing to adequately consider the fact that the appellant suffered from depressive illness and personality disorder, and had spent a large part of his life in a mental institution. Counsel urged that because of this, his client could not be considered an incorrigible criminal. Moreover, the appellant`s antecedents, although acknowledged to run into a long list, nevertheless comprised mainly drug-related offences which did not involve any element of dishonesty or violence.

With respect, I could not agree with counsel that the sentence was manifestly excessive. As the prosecution rightly pointed out, the appellant`s criminal record spoke volumes about the type of man that the court was dealing with. The appellant was clearly deeply entrenched in the criminal way of life, having started out on his life of crime from as early as when he was 16 years old. Now 44 years of age and an alarming 28 years of a career in crime later, the appellant...