Sentencing Considerations by Judges in Singapore: A Case Study

This essay discusses the subject matter of sentencing and the considerations taken into account by the judges while awarding appropriate sentences to a criminal. It refers to a case to assess the legal principles of the subject of sentencing.

Running head: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND LAW OF EVIDENCE
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND LAW OF EVIDENCE
Name of Student
Name of University
Author Note

1CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND LAW OF EVIDENCE
Introduction
In legal terms sentencing can be defined as the punishment that has been ordered or
would be ordered by a trial judge in any criminal procedure. In a judge ruled process
sentencing is considered as a final and explicit act. Sentencing happens after the conviction of
the defendant or when the defendant has pleaded guilty. In the process of sentencing the
judge can be seen as deciding on the appropriate punishment for the crimes committed by an
individual considering different factors such as harm, culpability and other aggravating and
mitigating factors. In the Singaporean law there are five types of sentences- death,
imprisonment, caning, fine and probation. The sentences are awarded to the defendants in
accordance with the level and severity of their guilt. This paper aims to discuss in details
about the subject matter of sentencing and the considerations taken into account by the judges
while awarding appropriate sentences to a criminal. The essay will, in this context, refer to a
case to assess the legal principles of the subject of sentencing. The essay would be concluded
with a personal view of whether or not the sentencing could be considered as just and fair in
terms of law.
Sentencing
In the processes of the court sentencing can be considered as an important element. It
is described as the punishment that has either been ordered or would be ordered by the judge
in accordance with the severity of the act1. Multiple factors are taken into consideration by
the judges for the decision of an appropriate punishment of any offensive act. For ensuring
just and fair sentencing has been served to the defendant, both the prosecution and the
defence can be seen as assisting the judge to arrive at an appropriate sentence at the end of
the trial.2 The judges in a trial are generally guided by four different principles. These four
1 Ashworth, Andrew. Sentencing and criminal justice. Cambridge University Press, 2015.
2 Monahan, John, and Jennifer L. Skeem. "Risk assessment in criminal sentencing." Annual review of clinical
psychology 12 (2016): 489-513.

2CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND LAW OF EVIDENCE
principles are- retribution, deterrence, prevention and rehabilitation. According to the
principle of retribution an offender is required to be punished in accordance with the
culpability and the seriousness of the crime committed by him.3 The deterrence principle is
subdivided into two categories- general deterrence and specific deterrence4. The principle of
general deterrence can be observed as aiming to discourage individuals from engaging in
behaviours of offence for which the sentence has been meted out. By way of the specific
deterrence the offender is targeted for discouraging him from committing offence again5. The
main aim of the principle of the prevention is to physically incapacitate the offenders by way
of locking them away so that they are unable to cause any further damage.6 The final
principle, that is the principle of rehabilitation, mostly focuses on the capability of the
offender to reform and in accordance to such capability meting out the punishment that would
be the most appropriate for helping n the reformation.7
Sentencing in criminal justice system can be seen as serving two specific purposes.
The first purpose is to deter future crimes by the offenders as well as the individuals who
have a probability of commitment of similar crime. The second purpose of sentencing is to
serve as a retributive agent by punishing the offenders for acting in an offensive manner.
The judges can be seen as playing an important role in ensuring a just and fair trial
and sentencing. To ensure fairness the judges are required to be playing an active role at the
time of the trial. In furtherance to this the judges are required to carefully consider all the
circumstances and the evidence that have been submitted.
3 Zaibert, Leo. Punishment and retribution. Routledge, 2016.
4 Chalfin, Aaron, and Justin McCrary. "Criminal deterrence: A review of the literature." Journal of Economic
Literature 55.1 (2017): 5-48.
5 Nagin, Daniel S., Robert M. Solow, and Cynthia Lum. "Deterrence, criminal opportunities, and
police." Criminology 53.1 (2015): 74-100.
6 Crawford, Adam, and Karen Evans. Crime prevention and community safety. Oxford University Press, 2017.
7 Bonta, James, and Donald Arthur Andrews. The psychology of criminal conduct. Routledge, 2016.

3CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND LAW OF EVIDENCE
In the Singaporean legal system there are five types of sentences- death,
imprisonment, caning, fine and probation.8 The punishment of imprisonment can again be
seen as being subdivided into three types- ordinary imprisonment, life imprisonment and
corrective training or preventive detention. The sentences are awarded to the defendants in
accordance with the level and severity of their guilt. The sentences are awarded to the
defendants in accordance with the level and severity of their guilt. In Singapore the death
penalty is a legal punishment.9 The provision for the capital punishment is set out in section
316 of the Criminal Procedure Code10 which states that the sentence for death of a person
should be directing that the person is required to be hanged by the neck till his death but the
sentence does not require to state the time or the place that would be used to carry out the
sentence. As per section 31411 any person under the age 18 years cannot be hanged and as per
section 31512 any pregnant woman is barred from the sentence of death. Imprisonment
sentences are oftentimes seen as mandatory. The judges in Poh Boon Kiat v PP [2014] 4 SLR
89213 were seen as awarding the defendant with the sentence for maximum imprisonment
and further stated that for the sentencing process the legislative intent is required to be
looked upon. The bench marks for the ordinary imprisonments were set out by the judges in
their judgment in Dinesh Bhatia v PP [2005] 3 SLR 114. As per the court in the judgment in
Mohamed Shoufee v PP [2014] 2 SLR 99815 it was held that the terms for imprisonment of
two sentences running in a consequent manner is required to be exceeding the highest
imprisonment term imposed to the offender. However, as per the judgment in PP v Mohd
8 Singh, Amardeep. "Sentencing Reform in Singapore: Are the Guidelines in England and Wales a Useful
Model." SAcLJ 30 (2018): 175.
9 Amirthalingam, Kumaralingam. "Prosecutorial Discretion and Sentencing in Singapore." Oxford University
Commonwealth Law Journal (2018): 46-72.
10 Criminal Procedure Code 1985, s316
11 Criminal Procedure Code 1985, s314
12 Criminal Procedure Code 1985, s315
13 Poh Boon Kiat v PP [2014] 4 SLR 892
14Dinesh Bhatia v PP [2005] 3 SLR 1
15 Mohamed Shoufee v PP [2014] 2 SLR 998

4CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND LAW OF EVIDENCE
Liton [2008] 1 SLR 60816 if an offender is charged with offences under the same transaction
then the sentences for both the transactions is required to be running in a concurrent way and
not in a consecutive manner. If the effect of an aggregate sentence is seen as becoming
crushing sentence towards the offender for keeping with their prospects then the sentence
would not be considered as being suitable as held in the judgment of Kanagasuntharam v PP
[1992] 1 SLR 8117. The judges in the case were further seen as stating the provisions of
section 307 would be taking precedence over any other punishment for imprisonment.
Section 30718 provides that in case of 3 or more conviction charges on an offender, at least 2
of the imprisonment terms are required to be consecutive. In their judgment in Abdul Naser v
PP [1997] 3 SLR 64319 the court was seen as providing for the life time imprisonment for
offenders. Referring to section 30420 which provides for the enhanced sentences like
corrective training for offenders having records for prior conviction and section 305 which
provides for reformative training the judges in the case of PP v Adith [2014] 3 SLR 64921
held that as the offender was below the age of 21 years therefore the reformative training was
required to be rehabilitative. As held in the case Abu Sayeed Chowdury v PP [2002] 1 SLR
30122 the benchmarks are used by the courts for the establishment of consistency in the
process of sentencing. The provisions of the sentence of caning are mentioned in the sections
325-332 of the CPC23. The provisions of these sections mention that if any person cannot be
caned then an excess of 12 months of imprisonment is required to be imposed on them. In
section 328 the aggregate strokes for caning has also been mentioned as 24 strokes for the
adult offenders and 10 strokes for the juvenile offenders. The provisions for fines are
16 PP v Mohd Liton [2008] 1 SLR 608
17 Kanagasuntharam v PP [1992] 1 SLR 81
18 Criminal Procedure Code 1985, s307
19 Abdul Naser v PP [1997] 3 SLR 643
20 Criminal Procedure Code 1985, s304
21 PP v Adith [2014] 3 SLR 649
22 Abu Sayeed Chowdury v PP [2002] 1 SLR 301
23 Criminal Procedure Code 1985, ss 325-332

5CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND LAW OF EVIDENCE
mentioned in section 32024 as having the power to be suspending the default sentencing. The
courts were seen as referring to section 5 (1) of Public Order Act 200925 while deciding the
case Mohamad Fairuuz v PP [2015] 1 SLR 114526 stating that if fixed by law then the court
would not have any discretion and if not fixed the court would have their discretion for
granting probation.
Public Prosecutor v BND [2019] SGHC 4927
In the given case the defendant was seen as being charged two times for raping his
biological daughter. The charge was brought under the provisions of section 375 (1) (a) of the
Penal Code28 and the offence was punishable under section 375 (2) of the code29. Assessing
all the witnesses, testimonies, evidences and other submissions made by both the defence and
prosecution the judge was seen as convicting the defendant on both charges and had imposed
a sentence for 26 years of imprisonment and caning of 24 strokes. The judge was seen as
finding the testimony of the complainant to be convincing and the evidence was also in
corroboration with the DNA evidence in which the semen of the accused had been present on
the inner crotch area of the shorts that had been worn by the complainant at the time when the
crime was committed. The complainant did not initially complain against her father for his
actions. She confided in her boyfriend that she had been raped multiple times by her father in
their family home, who informed the same to the school counselor who then referred it to the
Ministry of Social and Family Development.
The complainant had given multiple statements to the police, which was challenged
by the defence to be given under threat. The judge, following an ancillary hearing declined to
be admitting the statements of the complainant on the grounds that it has not been proven
24 Criminal Procedure Code 1985, s320
25 Public Order Act 2009, section 5(1)
26 Mohamad Fairuuz v PP [2015] 1 SLR 1145
27 Public Prosecutor v BND [2019] SGHC 49
28 Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed), s 375 (1) (a)
29 Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed), s 375 (2)

6CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND LAW OF EVIDENCE
beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution that the complainant has given the statement in
a voluntary way. However, at the end of the trial the judge was seen as convicting the
offender to be guilty of both the charges as it has been approved by the prosecution beyond a
reasonable doubt that the offender was really guilty of the charges brought against him. The
two charges against the offender were both for committing the crime of rape on his biological
daughter who was 14 years old at that time. For both the charges he was held guilty under the
provisions of section 375 (1) (a) of the Penal Code30. The testimony of the complainant was
observed by the judge to be very convincing and could alone warrant for the conviction of the
offender as her testimony was consistent in both internal and external manners. The challenge
by defence claiming the falsity of the statement of the complainant was proven as the
complainant's statement were confirmed by the testimony given by the offender's wife. It was
further submitted by the prosecution that the testimony given by the complainant was in
corroboration with the other evidences. Finding the semen of the offender on the interior
crotch area of the shots won by complainant can be considered as strong and incriminating
evidence against the offender. There was no account presented by the accused for his semen
to be found on the shorts of his daughter. The chain of the custody of the evidence or the
accurate manner of the analysis of DNA remained uncontested. An old tear was also found on
the hymen of the complainant which was also submitted as corroborative evidence by the
prosecution.
The accused was seen as denying all the charges against him stating that as the
accused and his wife were strict with their daughter, she wanted to obtain freedom from them
and hence has brought this charge to falsely accuse him of such crime. It was further claimed
by the accused that the testimony given by the complainant cannot be considered as
convincing. The defendant also submitted that while he was recording is statement the
30 Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed), s 375 (1) (a)

7CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND LAW OF EVIDENCE
interviewing police officers have pressurized him for admitting his offence. After the cross
examination was conducted by the prosecution to the accused the prosecution was seen as
making an application under section 279 (7) of the Criminal Procedure Code31 to reconsider
the admissibility of the statement of the defendant. This application was seen to be dismissed
by the judge because it was found that the difference between the terms used by the accused
would not be sufficient for proving that the accused was not pressurized into accepting his
guilt.
The judge was seen as referring to the cases such as AOF v Public Prosecutor [2012]
3 SLR 3432, Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik [2008] 1
SLR(R) 60133, and Haliffie bin Mamat v Public Prosecutor and other appeals [2016] 5 SLR
63634 for the determination of the admissibility of the statement by the complainant. The
court found that the testimony by the complainant had been unusually convincing and for the
inconsistencies pointed out by the defence was considered by the judge to be immaterial and
minor. The judge reasoned that as there were a total of eight instances where she had been
raped by her father it might not be easy to recall every action for her so easily. The judge also
found the corroborative evidence to be consistent. Therefore, considering the testimonies and
evidences the judge found the defendant to be guilty on both the accounts and convicted him
for the same. The judge was seen as assessing all the factors of the case and then analyzing
all the evidences and testimonies presented before it to come into a definite conclusion. The
judge was seen as considering the admissibility of the testimonies of both the defendant and
the complainant. The judge further considered the corroborative evidences and the DNA
evidences and came into a final verdict.
31 Criminal Procedure Code 1985, s 279 (7)
32 AOF v Public Prosecutor [2012] 3 SLR 34
33 Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik [2008] 1 SLR(R) 601
34 Haliffie bin Mamat v Public Prosecutor and other appeals [2016] 5 SLR 636

8CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND LAW OF EVIDENCE
Conclusion
The main focus of this essay was the sentencing considerations by the judges in
Singapore. In the essay the subject matter of sentencing and the considerations taken into
account by the judges while awarding appropriate sentences to a criminal has been
disccussed. The essay, in this context, has referred to a case to assess the legal principles of
the subject of sentencing. The case Public Prosecutor v BND is a rape case in which the
defendant was accused of committing thee rape of his 14 year old biological daughter. The
court was seen as assessing all the factors of the case and then analyzing all the evidences and
testimonies presented before it to come into a definite conclusion. The judge was seen as
considering the admissibility of the testimonies of both the defendant and the complainant.
The court, further considered the corroborative evidences and the DNA evidences and came
into a final verdict. In my opinion the line of the judgment in this case was just and fair. The
approach of the punishment was part retributive and part deterrence. Sentencing the offender
with 24 canes is retributive for the seriousness of raping his biological daughter multiple
times, who is also a minor. Sentencing him for an imprisonment of 26 years can be
considered as a deterrent to him as well as others from committing such crimes. In
furtherance, the sentences are also in consistent with the provisions of the CPC and the Penal
Code.

9CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND LAW OF EVIDENCE
Reference
Books and Journal
Amirthalingam, Kumaralingam. "Prosecutorial Discretion and Sentencing in
Singapore." Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal (2018): 46-72.
Ashworth, Andrew. Sentencing and criminal justice. Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Bonta, James, and Donald Arthur Andrews. The psychology of criminal conduct. Routledge,
2016.
Chalfin, Aaron, and Justin McCrary. "Criminal deterrence: A review of the
literature." Journal of Economic Literature 55.1 (2017): 5-48.
Crawford, Adam, and Karen Evans. Crime prevention and community safety. Oxford
University Press, 2017.
Monahan, John, and Jennifer L. Skeem. "Risk assessment in criminal sentencing." Annual
review of clinical psychology 12 (2016): 489-513.
Nagin, Daniel S., Robert M. Solow, and Cynthia Lum. "Deterrence, criminal opportunities,
and police." Criminology 53.1 (2015): 74-100.
Singh, Amardeep. "Sentencing Reform in Singapore: Are the Guidelines in England and
Wales a Useful Model." SAcLJ 30 (2018): 175.
Zaibert, Leo. Punishment and retribution. Routledge, 2016.
Legislations
Criminal Procedure Code 1985
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)

10CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND LAW OF EVIDENCE
Public Order Act 2009
Cases
Abdul Naser v PP [1997] 3 SLR 643
Abu Sayeed Chowdury v PP [2002] 1 SLR 301
AOF v Public Prosecutor [2012] 3 SLR 34
Dinesh Bhatia v PP [2005] 3 SLR 1
Haliffie bin Mamat v Public Prosecutor and other appeals [2016] 5 SLR 636
Kanagasuntharam v PP [1992] 1 SLR 81
Mohamad Fairuuz v PP [2015] 1 SLR 1145
Mohamed Shoufee v PP [2014] 2 SLR 998
Poh Boon Kiat v PP [2014] 4 SLR 892
PP v Adith [2014] 3 SLR 649
Public Prosecutor v BND [2019] SGHC 49
Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik [2008] 1 SLR(R) 601