Yong Siew Soon and Another v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 14 June 1992
• Neutral Citation: [1992] SGHC 164
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 51/92/01-02
• Date: 14 June 1992
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1992
• Plaintiff Counsel: Robert Yu (Low & Robert Yu)
• Citation: [1992] SGHC 164
• Defendant Counsel: Henry Hoe (Henry Hoe & Co),Tan Chee Meng (Deputy Senior State Counsel)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Abetment of cheating,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Consistency in sentencing,'Clang of prison gates' principle,Whether sentence manifestly excessive,ss 109, 417 & 419 Penal Code (Cap 224),Principles,Sentencing

The appellants were each convicted of two charges of abetment of cheating, an offence punishable under s 109 read with s 417 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) (`the Code`). They pleaded guilty to the charges and had a similar third charge against each of them taken into consideration in sentencing. The first appellant was sentenced to two months` imprisonment on each charge, the sentences to run concurrently. The second appellant was sentenced to five months` imprisonment on each charge, the sentences likewise to run concurrently. Both appellants had been in remand for three weeks and this was taken into account by the learned judge. I dismissed the appellants` appeals against sentence and now give my reasons.

The essence of the charges was that the appellants had abetted two Chinese nationals in cheating an auxiliary police officer by the presentation of boarding passes in assumed names, in order that they would be allowed to board an aeroplane for a flight out of Singapore. These two Chinese nationals, Li Bao Quan and Wang Kong Xin, had been introduced by the first appellant to the second appellant for her to arrange for them to enter the USA with false passports. They handed their passports to the second appellant, who gave them to one Thomas Tham for their photographs to be substituted onto Singapore international passports. These passports were supplied by one David Ong Soon Peng. After the passports had been prepared, the second appellant purchased airline tickets and obtained boarding passes for the Chinese nationals in their assumed names. On the day of departure, the Chinese nationals passed through immigration with their genuine PRC passports, having also been checked in for a flight to Hong Kong which they had no intention of boarding. They then presented the boarding passes in assumed names for the SQ16 flight to the USA. They were discovered and arrested by the police.

The Chinese nationals were arrested, charged and convicted of cheating by impersonation under s 419 of the Code. They were each sentenced to three months` imprisonment. David Ong, who had supplied the passports, was convicted on three charges of abetting cheating by impersonation. He was sentenced to two years` imprisonment on each charge, with two of those terms to run consecutively. Twelve other charges were taken into consideration in sentencing.

The first appellant

For the first appellant, it was contended in mitigation that there were strong extenuating circumstances in his favour. Counsel said that he had played a minor role in the abetment, merely introducing the two Chinese nationals to the second appellant. The Chinese nationals were relatives of members of the Foochow Hup Pek Association, of which the first appellant was an active committee member. Moreover, he had not committed the offences with the object of financial gain, nor had any financial loss been caused to any person. He had committed the offences only because he wanted to help the Chinese nationals to go to the USA because they could not bear living conditions in China. He had pleaded guilty. Furthermore, he was 63 years old, of good character and had contributed much to society, having spent much time in community service. An added consideration was the time that he had spent waiting for trial (though the appellants were charged in 1988, the case was only heard in February 1992).

Counsel`s main contention was that the `clang of prison gates` principle should be applied to the first appellant, and that the three weeks of remand was...