Wong Shan Shan v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lee Seiu Kin J
• Judgment Date: 09 April 2008
• Neutral Citation: [2008] SGHC 49
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2008
• Published date: 03 July 2008
• Plaintiff Counsel: The appellant in person
• Defendant Counsel: Leong Wing Tuck (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
• Citation: [2008] SGHC 49

9 April 2008

Lee Seiu Kin J:

1 The appellant, a 19-year old girl, was on very bad terms with a couple who lived in her block of flats. In June and July 2007, she expressed her anger by vandalising the outside walls and doors of various units and lifts of her block with abusive messages targeted at the couple, as well as by sending volleys of obscenity-laced short messaging services (SMSes) to the couple’s handphones. She pleaded guilty to two counts of vandalism, punishable under s 3 of the Vandalism Act (Cap 341, 1985 Rev Ed)(“the Vandalism Act”), and two counts of intentional harassment under s 13A(1)(a) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Cap 184, 1997 Rev Ed). Another eight counts of vandalism were taken into consideration. The district judge sentenced the appellant to two months’ imprisonment for each vandalism charge, with the sentences to run concurrently, and a fine of $1,000 in default one week’s imprisonment for each of the intentional harassment charges. She appealed against the sentence imposed.

2 By the time I heard the appeal on 12 December 2007, the appellant had been incarcerated since 9 November 2007, and thus had served 33 days of imprisonment. As she did not pay the fine for the intentional harassment charges, her stay would have been extended by a further two weeks on top of the two months for the vandalism charges. However, I was of the view that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and I reduced the sentence so that the appellant would be released at 4 pm on the day of hearing of the appeal.

The appellant’s background

3 The appellant is the youngest of four children. She and her family migrated from Hong Kong. According to the mitigation plea, she has been mostly left to her own devices as her older siblings, having married, do not live with her. Her parents make frequent trips to Hong Kong.

4 Dr Kenneth G.W.W. Koh (“Dr Koh”) of the Institute of Mental Health examined the appellant on two occasions when she was remanded in Woodbridge Hospital (“the hospital”) for the period 18 July to 1 August 2007 following her arrest. He reported that the appellant had been studying for her GCE ‘O’ levels as a private student. She had worked as a kindergarten assistant, a cashier and a cleaner, maintaining each job for a few months at most. For the two months preceding Dr Koh’s examinations, the appellant had been staying alone as her parents had returned to Hong Kong.

5 Dr Koh reported that the appellant had been having various long-standing tiffs with her neighbour, a Sikh couple (Mr and Mrs Singh). The appellant had told him that they had undergone mediation at the subordinate courts in July 2006. The appellant said that things settled down for a while after the mediation, but the mutual harassment resumed. No other details of the disputes were given.

6 According to Dr Koh, the appellant was seen once by the National University Hospital’s Psychiatric Team over her problems with her neighbours, but was discharged after one visit. He reported that the appellant was neat in appearance and there were no symptoms or signs of mania or depression. She denied alcohol or substance abuse. She did not exhibit any psychotic behaviour during her stay at the hospital. Her mother, however, reported that she had odd beliefs, such as claiming that Mr Singh and his wife placed charms on her through their toilet bowl. She thus poured bleach into the toilet bowl daily and taped it up with masking tape. She also avoided water pipes when she walked in the void deck area. Apparently, the appellant also had a litigious streak: she had called the police to settle disputes with her own brother.

7 Dr Koh’s diagnosis was that the appellant may have an early paranoid psychosis or a paranoid personality. However, she was not of an unsound mind at the time of the offences. He recommended that her family maintained closer ties with her and ensured that she continued with further psychiatric treatment either in Singapore or Hong Kong, should the family decide to move there.

The offences

8 In relation to the vandalism charges, according to the statement of facts, which the appellant admitted to without qualification, closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage revealed that she had, on 14 July 2007 at about 12.27pm, used a black spray can on the door and main gate of unit #10-35 of her block of flats. The same CCTV footage showed that on 15 July 2007 at about 6.00pm, the appellant used a black marker pen to write a vulgar expression with a reference to unit #14-39 on the side of the wall outside the same unit. The occupants of unit #14-39 were Mr and Mrs Singh. Unit #10-35 was owned by the Housing Development Board (HDB).

9 The charges taken into account related to incidents of vandalism committed in the same block on 29 August 2005, between 4 and 5 September 2005, 3 April 2006, 29 January 2007, 3 March 2007, 19 June 2007, 2 July 2007 and 7 July 2007. In some of these incidences, the abusive messages were also aimed at Mr and Mrs Singh.

10 As for the intentional harassment charges, Mr Singh’s handphone had received 19 SMSes from the appellant’s handphone from 17 to18 June 2007. These contained vulgar and racist remarks in local pidgin. Mrs Singh received 20 SMSes of a similar nature from the appellant from 15 to 17 June 2007.

The decision below

11 The defence counsel highlighted the appellant’s personal situation to the district judge, particularly her young age and Dr Koh’s diagnosis, and pleaded for the court to grant a lenient sentence. Counsel added that her family intended to take the appellant back to Hong Kong after the conclusion of this matter so that her parents could care for her there. Notably, there was no request for probation. The prosecution did not submit on sentence, except that the appellant was a serial offender, and that the nature of the remarks made were inflammatory and racist.

12 The district judge took into account the following factors:

(a) The acts of vandalism were committed on HDB property, which was “public property” under s 2 of the Vandalism Act.

(b) The vandalism was also committed using spray paints or marker pens which made removal of the marks difficult. Under s 3 of the Vandalism Act, the appellant would have been punished with caning as the vandalism was committed using indelible substances, but for the fact that she was female.

(c) The offences were committed over a period of time, thus necessitating the use of CCTV cameras. Such acts were easy to commit but hard to detect.

(d) The magnitude of the vandalism acts, committed over several floors of the same block of flats, was extensive.

(e) The offences were deliberately committed and not impulsive acts. The messages were abusive and motivated by malice, and were intended to harass Mr and Mrs Singh.

(f) According to the defence counsel, although inpatient treatment had been suggested at a previous pre-trial conference, the family was not able to afford inpatient treatment for the appellant and she only managed to attend two or three appointments. The district judge was not optimistic that the appellant’s parents would be able to adequately supervise the appellant and ensure her continuing psychiatric treatment in Singapore.

My decision

13 I was cognisant of the fact that there were significant aggravating factors in this case. The extent of the damage caused is particularly notable. In Raja s/o Shevalingam v PP (MA 195/92/01), the accused, also 19 years old, damaged the flushing system of a public toilet out of spite, because he had...