Tay Boon Sien v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 17 April 1998
• Date: 17 April 1998
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 315 of 1997
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Tay Boon Sien

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[1998] SGHC 117

Yong Pung How CJ

Magistrate's Appeal No 315 of 1997

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Offences affecting administration of justice–Acceptance of gratification to screen offender from punishment for offences of cheating–Whether one-quarter rule applicable to fine–Section 213 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)–Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Sentencing–Conviction on three charges–Whether separate offences–Whether s 71 (1) Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) applicable–Whether sentence manifestly excessive–Section 18 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)–Section 71 (1) Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)

The accused pleaded guilty and was convicted of three charges under s 213 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) for accepting gratification to screen an offender from punishment for offences of cheating under s 420. The offender had supplied illegal foreign workers with forged work permits to various victims and induced the victims into making Ministry of Labour levy payments for the workers. The accused was sentenced to ten months' imprisonment and fined $10,000 in default five months' imprisonment on each of the three charges. Two other similar charges were taken into consideration. The imprisonment sentences for the first and third charges were to run consecutively. In all the accused was sentenced to a total of 20 months' imprisonment and fined $30,000 in default 15 months' imprisonment. He appealed on the ground that the total sentence was manifestly excessive, and that the district judge had erred in law in the application of s 71 (1) of the Penal Code.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) Under s 213 of the Penal Code, the maximum sentence imposed for accepting a gratification in consideration of screening any person from legal punishment for any offence, where such offence was punishable with imprisonment not extending to ten years, was imprisonment up to one-quarter of the longest imprisonment provided for the offence, or fine, or both. The one-quarter rule did not apply in relation to the fine: at [9] and [10].

(2) The offence of screening an offender from legal punishment for any offence was grave and akin to an act that tended to pervert the course of justice. Further, trafficking in illegal immigrants and representing to employers that they were in possession of genuine work permits could create serious social problems. While a plea of guilt was a relevant consideration in sentencing, the protection of the public was an exception to the general rule that a plea of guilt entitled the convicted person to a discount. In the circumstances, the sentence meted on each charge was not manifestly excessive: at [11], [12], [16] and [17].

(3) If s 71 (1) applied and the court convicted the accused of all the charges, he could only be sentenced on one charge since he could not be punished with the punishment for more than one of the offences. The district judge wrongly applied s 71 (1) by imposing separate sentences in respect of all three charges. Section 71 (1) did not apply in this case as each acceptance of gratification by the accused constituted a separate offence of screening the offender from lawful punishment. Section 71 (1) only applied when all the acts complained of were component parts of but one offence or were so closely connected to form in reality one offence: at [21] to [23].

(4) Under s 18 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed), the district judge had no discretion but to order at least two of the three sentences to run consecutively. The overall sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and the appeal was dismissed: at [25] and [26].

BehariAIR 1953 All 510 (folld)

Fakira Khan (1905) 4 CLJ 90 (distd)

Fu Foo Tong v PP [1995] 1 SLR (R) 1; [1995] 1 SLR 448 (folld)

Kuek Ah Lek v PP [1995] 2 SLR (R) 766; [1995] 3 SLR 252 (refd)

Lim Gim Chong v PP [1994] 1 SLR (R) 261; [1994] 1 SLR 825 (refd)

Malu Arjun (1899) 1 Bom LR 142 (distd)

Tham Wing Fai Peter v PP [1988] 1 SLR (R) 349; [1988] SLR 424 (folld)

Wee Harry Lee v PP [1979-1980] SLR (R) 464; [1980-1981] SLR 301 (distd)

Zeng Guoyuan v PP [1997] 2 SLR (R) 999; [1997] 3 SLR 883 (folld)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)s 18 (consd)

Immigration Act (Cap 133, 1997 Rev Ed)

Miscellaneous Offences Act (Cap 184, 1997 Rev Ed)s 35 (1)

Penal Code (Cap 224,1985 Rev Ed)ss 71 (1), 213 (consd);ss 18,109, 170,420, 466,474

Criminal Procedure Code 1898 (India)ss 35, 36

Kertar Singh (Kertar & Co) for the appellant

Lim Pek Bur (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the respondent.

Yong Pung How CJ

1 The appellant pleaded guilty and was convicted by the District Court of three charges under s 213 Penal Code (Cap 224) for accepting gratification to screen an offender from punishment for offences of cheating under s 420. The appellant appealed against the sentences on the three charges only. After hearing the submissions, I dismissed the appeal and now set out my grounds.

2 The charges against the appellant were set out as follows:

First charge (DAC13953/1997)

You, Tay Boon Sien, M/40 yrs NRIC No: S 1239568Z are charged that you, sometime in the month of May 1994 in Singapore, did accept gratification of a sum of $4,000 for yourself from one Lim Boon Hui, in consideration of you screening the said Lim Boon Hui from legal punishment for offences of cheating under s 420 of the Penal Code, to wit, that you should be the scapegoat and admit to the investigation authorities that you had committed the offences of using a company Bojin Building Construction to cheat various victims into believing that the Thai workers supplied by Bojin were issued with genuine work permits and thereby inducing the victims to pay over to Bojin the MOL levy payments for the said workers, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 213 of the Penal Code.

Second charge (DAC13954/1997)

You, Tay Boon Sien, M/40 yrs NRIC No: S 1239568Z are charged that you, sometime in the month of June 1994 in Singapore, did accept gratification of a sum of $4,000 for yourself from one Lim Boon Hui, in consideration of you screening the said Lim Boon Hui from legal punishment for offences of cheating under s 420 of the Penal Code, to wit, that you should be the scapegoat and admit to the investigation authorities that you had committed the offences of using a company Bojin Building Construction to cheat various victims into believing that the Thai workers supplied by Bojin were issued with genuine work permits and thereby inducing the victims to pay over to Bojin the MOL levy payments for the said workers, and you have thereby committed an offence...