Public Prosecutor v Ramdzan Bin Sidik [2026] SGDC 294

Introduction

The Accused pleaded guilty to five charges and consented for eight charges to be taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing. The Court sentenced the Accused to eight years’ preventive detention. The Accused is appealing against his sentence.

On 15 May 2025, the Accused pleaded guilty to five charges as follows:

(a) For DAC-920087-2023, one charge of theft-in-dwelling on 18 July 2023 at Changi General Hospital Ward 49 Bed 26 of one mobile phone valued at $160 with identification cards in the phone casing under Section 380 of the Penal Code 1871 (“PC”);

(b) For DSC-900538-2024, one charge of consumption of specified drug, Methamphetamine, on 9 May 2024 with enhanced punishment under Section 33A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 (“MDA”);

(c) For DAC-907213-2025, one charge of theft on 15 August 2021 of one Galactic Silver OPPO Reno 5 with broken screen valued at $500, one Midnight Blue Huawei Mate 20 valued at $799 and one cashcard with stored value of $29.78 from a vehicle under Section 379 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“PC 2008”);

(d) For DAC-907214-2025, one charge of theft on 26 July 2022 of an electric bicycle “Jimove” valued at $1399 under Section 379 of the PC;

(e) For DAC-907215-2025, one charge of theft on 21 August 2023 under Section 379 of the PC of several items from the possession of Muhammad Rizlan Bin Abdul (see [15] below for the full details on the stolen items).

The Accused also consented for eight charges to be taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing, namely, three charges of theft in dwelling, three charges of theft, one charge of consumption of specified drug, morphine, with enhanced punishment under Section 33A(1) of the MDA and one charge of fraudulent possession under Section 35(1) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Cap 184, 1997 Rev Ed).

Prosecution submitted for a sentence of 10 years’ preventive detention. Counsel sought for the Accused to be sentenced to 9 years’ imprisonment, and in the alternative, if the Court is minded to sentence the Accused to a term of preventive detention, to impose a sentence of not more than 8 years’ preventive detention.

The Court sentenced the Accused to eight years’ preventive detention.

The sentence was backdated to the date of arrest, 25 November 2021, to take into account the Accused’s remand periods and to exclude the bail periods. The Accused was arrested on 25 November 2021 and released on 26 November 2021. He was arrested again on 22 July 2022 and released on 27 July 2022. Thereafter, he was remanded on 11 December 2023 and released on 21 March 2024. He was re-arrested on 9 May 2024 and released on 10 May 2024. He was subsequently remanded on 15 July 2024 and has been in remand since.

The Accused was on bail from 26 November 2021 to 26 July 2022, 27 July 2022 to 11 December 2023, 21 March 2024 to 9 May 2024 and 10 May 2024 to 15 July 2024.

The Accused filed an appeal against sentence and is currently serving his sentence.

Background

Facts

The Accused admitted to the Statement of Facts without qualification.

Facts regarding DAC-920087-2023

On 18 July 2023, the Accused was warded at ward 49 of Changi General Hospital, which is a building used as a human dwelling. The Accused was due to be discharged that day. Some time before he left ward 49, he noticed that the occupant of Bed 26, which was next to his, was asleep. The occupant was Poh Seng Lye (“Poh”). The Accused noted that Poh was sleeping beside an OPPO AX5S phone (valued at $160) and the casing contained Poh’s identification cards. The Accused dishonestly took the phone, put it in his pocket and walked out of the ward. The phone was subsequently recovered.

Facts regarding DSC-900538-2024

On 9 May 2024, the Accused was arrested at 10 Buangkok Drive, Buangkok Medical Park. His urine samples were found to contain Methamphetamine. He admitted to consuming methamphetamine on or before 9 May 2024 in Singapore.

Facts regarding DAC-907213-2025

On 15 August 2021, at about 12.37 pm, the Accused was riding a bicycle near 301 Geylang Road, Lorong 15, Singapore 389344, when he saw a parked lorry. He noticed that the lorry was unlocked and that no one was inside. Thus, he climbed into the driver’s seat of the lorry and dishonestly took the following items from the lorry:

(a) One Galactic Silver OPPO Reno 128GB phone with a broken screen valued at $500;

(b) One Midnight Blue Huawei Mate 20 128GB phone valued at $799; and

(c) One cashcard with a stored value of $29.78.

Facts regarding DAC-907214-2025

On 26 July 2022, at about 6.05 pm, the Accused was walking outside 445 Bedok North Street 1, Djitsun Mall, Singapore. He saw a “Jimove” electric bicycle (“e-bike”) that was parked but not secured to anything. The e-bike was valued at $1399 and the owner of the e-bike did not appear to be in the vicinity. The Accused dishonestly took the e-bike and rode it away. It was subsequently recovered from the Accused.

Facts regarding DAC-907215-2025

On 21 August 2023, at about 11.32 am, the Accused was walking outside 11 Bedok North Street 1, Heartbeat@Bedok, Singapore. He noticed a food delivery driver, Muhammad Rizlan bin Abdul (“Rizlan”) had just parked his motorcycle, taken the goods he was supposed to deliver out of his motorcycle’s rear compartment and walked off to deliver those goods without locking the motorcycle’s rear compartment.

Once Rizlan was out of sight, the Accused went to the motorcycle, opened the rear compartment and took one black Herschel crossbody sling bag hip fanny pack (valued at $104) (“the sling bag”) containing the following items:

(a) One black Apple watch series 3;

(b) One Singapore passport belonging to Rizlan;

(c) One black Braun Buffel wallet;

(d) One NRIC belonging to Rizlan;

(e) One driving licence belonging to Rizlan;

(f) One OCBC debit card belonging to Rizlan;

(g) One DBS debit card belonging to Rizlan;

(h) One black Herschel wallet;

(i) Cash amounting to MYR 155;

(j) Cash amounting to S$131;

(k) One black Porter coin pouch;

(l) One black portable charger with one lightning cable;

(m) One key fob;

(n) One bunch of housekeys;

(o) One AirPod case containing one left earpiece.

The sling bag and the items within have not been recovered and the Accused has not made restitution for them.

Prescribed Penalties

For the charge under Section 380 PC, any person convicted of this charge shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, and shall also be liable to fine.

For the charge under Section 8(b)(ii) punishable under Section 33A(1) of the MDA, any person convicted of this charge is liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term not less than 5 years and not more than 7 years; and not less than 3 strokes and not more than 6 strokes of the cane. The Accused was not eligible for caning due to his age.

For the charges under Section 379 under PC or PC 2008, any person convicted under these charges shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.

Antecedents

The Accused’s conviction history is set out as follows:

Parties’ Submissions

Prosecution’s Address on Sentence, Further and Supplemental Submissions on Sentence

The Prosecution submitted for the Accused to be sentenced to preventive detention of 10 years.

The Prosecution relied on the sentencing framework for imposing corrective training or preventive detention in Sim Yeow Kee v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2016] 5 SLR 936 (“Sim Yeow Kee”) applied to preventive detention in Ow Gan Wee v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGHC 135 (“Ow Gan Wee”) , and submitted as follows:

(a) The technical requirements under Section 304(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (“CPC”) are satisfied ;

(b) It is expedient for the protection of the public that the Accused be sentenced to preventive detention:

(i) The Accused has a lengthy criminal record and his “criminal activities began at 11 and continued for the next 48 years… he has spent 37 years and 24 months (i.e., nearly 40 years) serving various custodial sentences and has received a total of 22 strokes of cane” but “none of this has deterred him from reoffending” ;

(ii) The Accused has not been deterred from reoffending in similar ways and his criminal record is “constituted exclusively of property and drug offences” ;

(iii) The Accused committed the first of his current series of offences in August 2021, just 2 years after the completion of his 14-year corrective training sentence in July 2019. Between August 2021 and August 2023, he committed 11 property related offences ;

(iv) He was remanded from 11 December 2023 to 21 March 2024 after he was unable to furnish court bail. However, barely 6 weeks after he was released on bail, on 9 May 2024, he reoffended by committing the LT-1 offences ;

(v) The CT/PD report noted that the Accused’s risk of reoffending is high ;

(vi) There is “compelling evidence” that the Accused is a “person who will almost certainly reoffend (by committing property and/or drug offences) if left unchecked. Over 48 years, he has taken every opportunity at freedom, as an opportunity to offend.” ;

(c) Sentencing the Accused to a term of preventive detention would be consistent with precedent ;

(d) A term of preventive detention would not be disproportionate to the appropriate notional term of imprisonment. The Prosecution submits that the approximate notional global imprisonment would be at least 15 years ;

(e) The Accused’s eligibility for the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme (“MAS”) does not justify a sentence of imprisonment because the Accused’s recalcitrance, his propensity to reoffend and his notional imprisonment term “militate in favour” of a term of preventive detention ;

(f) MAS is also not the only opportunity for reformation and an offender may also reform while serving a term of preventive detention. An offender serving preventive detention may eventually be released on licence as early as after the detainee has served two-thirds of his imprisonment but the difference is that this is not a matter of right but “a privilege that the detainee must earn, by showing that he has made sufficient progress in his rehabilitation” . The Prosecution submits that such structured incentives for prisoner reform in the preventive detention context are the “more suitable path” for the Accused’s rehabilitation ;

(g) A sentence of 10 years’ preventive detention is suitable in this case in light of the Accused’s age and high risk of offending, and it also ensures that it does not “fall too far short” of the previous incarceration given the accused’s escalation in offending .

For the Prosecution’s notional global term of imprisonment, the Prosecution submitted for the following individual sentences :

(a) DAC-907213-2025 (theft charge): At least 2 years’ imprisonment (consecutive);

(b) DAC-907214-2025 (theft charge): At least 2 years’ imprisonment (consecutive);

(c) DAC-907215-2025 (theft charge): At least 2 years’ imprisonment (consecutive);

(d) DAC-920087-2023 (theft in dwelling charge): At least 4 years’ imprisonment (consecutive);

(e) DSC-900538-2024 (drug consumption charge): 5 years’ imprisonment (consecutive).

Defence’s Mitigation and Submissions on Sentence

Counsel submitted a mitigation plea and three further submissions for sentencing. The Accused also submitted several letters of mitigation for the consideration of the Court.

Counsel submitted that the Accused’s case does not warrant the imposition of preventive detention and sought instead for a global sentence of 9 years’ imprisonment.

Counsel submitted for the following individual sentences for the proceeded charges:

(a) DAC-907213-2025 (theft charge): 2 years’ imprisonment (consecutive);

(b) DAC-907214-2025 (theft charge): 2 years’ imprisonment (consecutive);

(c) DAC-907215-2025 (theft charge): 18 months’ imprisonment (concurrent);

(d) DAC-920087-2023 (theft in dwelling charge): 18 months’ imprisonment (concurrent);

(e) DSC-900538-2024 (drug consumption charge): 5 years’ imprisonment (consecutive).

Counsel submitted the following in support of a regular imprisonment term instead of preventive detention for the Accused:

(a) The Accused’s criminality does not warrant the imposition of a term of preventive detention. A sentence of preventive detention would be “overly harsh” and not take into account his capacity for reform ;

(b) Although the Accused received a sentence of corrective training in 2005, Counsel cited cases to show that regular imprisonment term can be imposed even after an offender has received prior terms of corrective training ;

(c) A regular imprisonment term would allow the Accused to undergo MAS. The Accused has not been given an opportunity to undergo MAS before ;

(d) The Accused had protective factors in his life which would support a finding that he has the capacity to reform and benefit from MAS:

(i) Familial and personal circumstances ;

(ii) Future ambitions ;

(iii) Religion and community ;

(e) Based on the length of the Accused’s criminal record and the nature of his offences, the Accused did not demonstrate comparable levels of criminality as other offenders who were sentenced to preventive detention ;

(f) Based on proportionality to a limited degree, a term of preventive detention may lead to the Accused spending a “disproportionately higher amount of time in incarceration” as compared with a regular imprisonment term ;

(g) Based on the Accused’s age at 60, Counsel submitted that a term of preventive detention of between 7 to 20 years may amount to a life sentence ;

(h) A sentence of 9 years’ imprisonment would adequately balance the need for deterrence, rehabilitation and proportionality.

Counsel also submitted three further sets of submissions on sentencing. The first further submissions and second further submissions dealt with the findings in the CT/PD report and will be addressed at [59] to [67] below. In the second further submissions, Counsel maintained that a sentence of 9 years’ imprisonment would be appropriate for the Accused but if the Court was minded to impose a sentence of preventive detention on the Accused, Counsel urged the Court not to impose a sentence of more than 8 years’ preventive detention.

The third further submissions were in reply to Prosecution’s submissions on the individual notional sentences and Counsel highlighted that Prosecution’s submission for the notional imprisonment term for all five proceeded charges to run consecutively would be contrary to established sentencing principles and contravene the totality principle .

Pre-sentencing report for corrective training and preventive detention

The pre-sentencing report for corrective training and preventive detention (“CT/PD Report”) found the Accused mentally and physically suitable for corrective training and preventive detention. The CT/PD report concluded that based on Singapore’s norms, the Accused’s LS/CMI score placed him in the “High Risk/Need level of criminal re-offending”. The Senior Correctional Rehabilitation Specialist, Chew Bing Rui, (“SCR Specialist”) concluded:

The SCR Specialist stated the following for the Accused’s Risk Findings:

(a) Family/Marital – compared to the Accused’s account of having a cordial relationship with his family, his brother indicated that “their relationship had been strained due to Ramdzan’s erratic behaviours and drug use”. The Accused reported having a cordial relationship with his Malaysian wife. He resided in Malaysia until 2022 when his current offences restricted him from leaving Singapore ;

(b) Education/Employment – the Accused and his brother indicated that the Accused worked in family-provided employment because he would otherwise be “unable to obtain and maintain gainful employment independently”. Similarly, after being restricted from leaving Singapore due to his current offences, the Accused’s account of working deliveries for his cousin was contradicted by his brother who indicated that the Accused “worked irregularly and did not sustain long-term employment” ;

(c) Companions – the Accused’s account revealed a history of “significant involvement with antisocial peers, having been actively involved with gang peers and maintaining close-knit relationships with them”. Although the Accused reported ceasing contact with gang and drug peers after his CT sentence, his brother contradicted the Accused’s claims and stated the Accused had “maintained contact with antisocial peers and was involved in drugs since 2021” ;

(d) Leisure/Recreation – the Accused’s account of spending his free time meaningfully was contradicted by his brother’s account ;

(e) Alcohol/Drug Problem – the Accused’s criminal history indicated a history of drug abuse. According to the Accused, his current drug use problem “reemerged in May 2024 when he accepted methamphetamine offered by a former gang peer and reportedly using it once out of curiosity” but this was contradicted by the Accused’s brother who reported that the Accused has used drugs since 2021 and caught him abusing drugs at home on multiple occasions ;

(f) Antisocial Pattern – the Accused had a pattern of “early and diverse antisocial behaviours” and “revealed an extensive criminal history dating back to his adolescence years”. His criminal activities had continued over a span of 48 years and suggested a “persistent pattern of offending behaviour”;

(g) Attitudes/Orientation – the Accused had permissive attitudes towards crime. He minimised his responsibility in his current theft offences and his account indicated a “pattern of opportunistic theft and reported viewing these offences as easily executable” .

The SCR Specialist stated that there were no protective factors assessed for the Accused.

Decision on Sentence

Under Section 304(2) of the CPC, where a court is satisfied that it is expedient for the protection of the public that the person should be detained in custody for a substantial period of time, followed by a period of supervision if released before the expiry of his or her sentence, the court, unless it has special reasons for not doing so, must sentence him or her to preventive detention for a period of 7 to 20 years in lieu of any sentence of imprisonment, or any sentence of imprisonment and fine.

Both parties applied the sentencing framework set out in Sim Yeow Kee in their submissions, which the High Court in Ow Gan Wee at [4] accepted that it should also apply to preventive detention.

The High Court in Toh Lam Seng v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2025] SGHC 116 at [80] noted that the sentencing framework for imposing corrective training as set out in Sim Yeow Kee applied to preventive detention as well in light of Ow Gan Wee and characterised the two-stage inquiry as follows:

For the first stage, both parties accepted that the technical requirements for Section 304(2) of the CPC were fulfilled. Hence, the Court turned to the inquiry in the second stage.

Step 1: What is the imprisonment term that would likely be imposed on the offender for the underlying offence?

The Court will address the imprisonment term that would likely be imposed on the offender for the underlying offence for each charge.

Considering the nature of the Accused’s offending and his criminal history, general and specific deterrence were the predominant sentencing considerations for him. In light of the Accused’s previous criminal offending and antecedents (as set out in [20] above), both parties agreed that there was a need for the principle of escalation in the sentencing of the Accused for his property and drug charges.

The Accused’s previous conviction was on 23 June 2005 where he pleaded guilty to 3 charges of failure to report for urine test under Regulation 15(3)(f) of the MDR, 1 charge of theft in dwelling and 1 charge of fraudulent possession of property. He consented for 1 charge of theft in dwelling and 2 charges of fraudulent possession of property to be taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing. He was sentenced to 14 years’ corrective training and was released in July 2019.

Comparing the value of the stolen items in the current set of proceeded charges and the value of the stolen items for the 2005 conviction based on the plead guilty papers uploaded by the Prosecution, it was clear that the value of the stolen items in this set of proceeded charges was comparable or even higher than the 2005 conviction. The Prosecution submitted that the present set of offences was more serious than before because the failure to report for urine test charges had escalated to LT-1 drug consumption charges and instead of 5 property related offences, the Accused had now committed 11.

Prosecution submitted for the following individual sentences:

(a) DAC-907213-2025 (theft charge): At least 2 years’ imprisonment (consecutive);

(b) DAC-907214-2025 (theft charge): At least 2 years’ imprisonment (consecutive);

(c) DAC-907215-2025 (theft charge): At least 2 years’ imprisonment (consecutive);

(d) DAC-920087-2023 (theft in dwelling charge): At least 4 years’ imprisonment (consecutive);

(e) DSC-900538-2024 (drug consumption charge): 5 years’ imprisonment (consecutive).

Counsel submitted for the following individual sentences:

(a) DAC-907213-2025 (theft charge): 2 years’ imprisonment (consecutive);

(b) DAC-907214-2025 (theft charge): 2 years’ imprisonment (consecutive);

(c) DAC-907215-2025 (theft charge): 18 months’ imprisonment (concurrent);

(d) DAC-920087-2023 (theft in dwelling charge): 18 months’ imprisonment (concurrent);

(e) DSC-900538-2024 (drug consumption charge): 5 years’ imprisonment (consecutive).

For DAC-907213-2025 and DAC-907214-2025, Prosecution submitted for at least 2 years’ imprisonment and Counsel submitted for 2 years’ imprisonment. The Court agreed that 2 years’ imprisonment would reflect the Accused’s criminality for these offences in light of the value of the stolen property and the escalation needed to reflect his re-offending in light of his antecedents.

For DAC-907215-2025, Prosecution submitted for at least 2 years’ imprisonment and Counsel submitted for 18 months’ imprisonment. Based on Counsel’s submissions, it appeared that a lower sentence had been calibrated as Counsel was of the view that the value of the stolen item was lower than in DAC-907213-2025 and DAC-907214-2025. The Court was of the view that the loss could not be considered solely on the monetary value of the stolen items because the theft of the victim’s sling bag had also involved loss of several important personal items such as the victim’s passport, NRIC, driving licence, debit cards and house keys. There was also loss of other items of value such as a black Apple Watch and AirPod case.

The Accused was offered agency bail on 10 May 2023 as stated on ICMS and the offence was committed on 21 August 2023 while he was on agency bail. This was an aggravating factor which should also be taken into account in sentence. Hence, the Court was of the view that 2 years’ imprisonment would reflect the Accused’s criminality for this offence.

For DAC-920087-2023, this was a theft-in-dwelling charge with a maximum sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment compared to the theft charges with a maximum sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment. Prosecution submitted for a sentence of at least 4 years’ imprisonment and Counsel submitted for 18 months’ imprisonment. Counsel had pegged the severity of this charge as being similar to DAC 907215-2025. In support of the Prosecution’s sentencing submission of 4 years’ imprisonment, the Prosecution tendered an annex of sentencing precedents. However, most of the precedents were unreported.

For DAC-920087-2023, the Court noted that the Accused had stolen the handphone which also contained the victim’s identification cards from the victim while he was sleeping in the bed next to his in a hospital ward. The Accused had also committed this offence on 18 July 2023 whilst he was on agency bail. Thus, the Court was of the view that a sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment would reflect his criminality for this offence.

For DSC-900538-2024, the LT-1 drug consumption charge, both parties submitted for the mandatory minimum 5 years’ imprisonment. The Court was of the view that although the Accused had pleaded guilty at Stage 1, it was not sufficient for the mandatory minimum 5 years’ imprisonment term to be given to the Accused in light of the fact that the Accused had committed this offence whilst on court bail and he also had one other LT-1 drug consumption charge taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing. The Court thus imposed 5 years 3 months’ imprisonment for this offence.

Hence, the likely imprisonment the Court would impose if it decided not to sentence the offender to preventive detention was as follows:

(a) DAC-907213-2025 (theft charge): 2 years’ imprisonment (consecutive);

(b) DAC-907214-2025 (theft charge): 2 years’ imprisonment (concurrent);

(c) DAC-907215-2025 (theft charge): 2 years’ imprisonment (concurrent);

(d) DAC-920087-2023 (theft in dwelling charge): 2 years’ imprisonment (consecutive);

(e) DSC-900538-2024 (drug consumption charge): 5 years 3 months’ imprisonment (consecutive).

The Prosecution had submitted for a global notional imprisonment term of at least 15 years’ imprisonment while Counsel had submitted for a global notional imprisonment term of 9 years’ imprisonment. Although all five charges involved distinct offences committed on different occasions with distinct legal interests, the Court disagreed with the Prosecution that all five sentences should run consecutively. The Court was of the view that running three sentences consecutively would be sufficient to reflect the Accused’s overall offending and be consistent with the totality principle.

Thus, the global imprisonment term if the Court decided not to sentence the offender to preventive detention would be 9 years 3 months’ imprisonment.

Step 2: Whether the MAS was available and if it would benefit the Accused

Both parties accepted that the Accused would likely be found eligible to be placed on MAS if he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

The Court was of the view that this was a neutral factor. The High Court in Ow Gan Wee at [6(b)] had agreed with the District Judge (“DJ”) that the eligibility of the accused in Ow Gan Wee for MAS was a neutral factor. The DJ in Public Prosecutor v Ow Gan Wee [2023] SGDC 16 at [47] had observed the following:

This is consistent with Prosecution’s submissions that MAS does not offer the only opportunity for the Accused to reform. The Prosecution highlighted that the offender may reform while serving a term of preventive detention and under Regulation 22(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Corrective Training and Preventive Detention) Regulations 2010, it is directed at Stage 3 that “every effort must be made, as far as practicable, to prepare a prisoner for release into the community”. Hence, the Court was of the view that eligibility for MAS was a neutral factor.

Step 3: Whether a sentence of preventive detention would be unduly disproportionate

The test of expediency in relation to preventive detention focuses on “the protection of the public” (Sim Yeow Kee at [37]). The High Court in Sim Yeow Kee at [97] stated that considerations of proportionality would not “apply rigorously in such circumstances”:

Comparing the global notional imprisonment term at [51] of 9 years 3 months’ imprisonment, the Court was of the view that preventive detention would not be unduly disproportionate.

The Court agreed with Prosecution’s submissions that the case for imposing preventive detention on the Accused was “compelling” based on the factors highlighted and set out in [22(b)] above, such as the Accused’s lengthy criminal record, the escalation in offending from his previous conviction in 2005, how he re-offended just two years after his release in July 2019, how he re-offended on agency bail and court bail, and how he had clearly not been deterred from re-offending by his previous 14-year corrective training.

The Court considered the totality of the Accused's previous convictions together with the Accused's present offending. Considering the nature of the offences, circumstances of the offending, the fact that the Accused re-offended while on agency bail and on court bail, the Accused's risk of re-offending and his antecedents, the Court was of the view that it was expedient for the protection of the public for the Accused to be detained for a substantial period of time and preventive detention would be an appropriate sentence.

The CT/PD Report stated that the Accused was in the high risk/need level of criminal re-offending. Notably, the CT/PD Report noted that the Accused’s criminal activities had continued over a span of 48 years:

Prosecution submitted that weight should be placed on the CT/PD Report while Counsel submitted that less weight should be put on the CT/PD Report and that the Court should give weight to the fact that the Accused did have protective factors and his risk of re-offending should be re-examined in light of the support he could get from Ms Salmiah.

Counsel submitted that the SCR Specialist had not provided a “nuanced analysis” of the various risk/protective factors present in the Accused’s life and had shown “insufficient justification” that the Accused had no protective factors and was suitable for corrective training and preventive detention. Counsel requested to question the SCR Specialist and this was facilitated. Even after questioning from Counsel, the SCR Specialist maintained his position in the CT/PD Report. The SCR Specialist indicated that the letter from Ms Salmiah would not change the conclusion in his CT/PD Report.

Counsel submitted that less weight should be placed on the CT/PD Report because (i) the SCR Specialist obtained information from only one family member which provided a “skewed and incomplete portrayal” of the Accused; (ii) less weight should be placed on the Accused’s risk factors and (iii) the SCR Specialist had no basis to conclude that the Accused had no protective factors.

For (i), the SCR Specialist had explained that he could only contact the Accused’s brother because the Accused’s mother and step-sister were uncontactable. Further, the SCR Specialist explained that he took into account both the Accused’s brother’s account and the Accused’s own account when making the findings in his CT/PD Report. For (ii), Counsel’s argument was based largely on the SCR Specialist relying on the Accused’s brother’s account in identifying the risk factors but the SCR Specialist had adequately explained the risk factors and as stated above, he had taken into account both the Accused’s own account and the Accused’s brother’s account when making his findings.

For (iii), Counsel’s submissions were mainly premised on Ms Salmiah, the Accused’s step-sister in Malaysia, who had indicated that she would take care of the Accused as a protective factor that had not been taken into account sufficiently by the SCR Specialist in his CT/PD Report. However, even if this was taken into account as a protective factor, the Court was of the view that the risk findings in the CT/PD Report would still outweigh this protective factor:

As the CT/PD Report noted, the Accused’s criminal activities spanned over 48 years. Even though he had a wife in Malaysia and some family-supported work, the SCR Specialist noted that this was affected when the Accused was restricted from leaving Singapore due to his criminal offending. Considering the Accused’s criminal history and recalcitrant offending, the SCR Specialist was justified in finding that the employment or family support cited by the Accused had not been shown to be a protective factor for him.

The Court also noted that the step-sister’s offer of help from Malaysia was similar to the Defence’s submission in Public Prosecutor v Mark Kalaivanan s/o Tamilarasan [2024] SGHC 73 (“Mark Kalaivanan s/o Tamilarasan”) that the Accused’s uncle had made plans for the Accused to go overseas to live in a missionary home when he was released from prison. The High Court in Mark Kalaivanan s/o Tamilarasan at [101] found that this “represented no more than a hope, and was not sufficient to persuade me that it would adequately address the risk of the Accused re-offending and being a menace to the public”.

Hence, the Court, even if it were to give weight to Ms Salmiah’s offer as a protective factor for the Accused, would find that the Accused’s risk findings outweighed the protective factor and would agree with the finding in the CT/PD Report that the Accused was in the “High Risk/Need level of criminal re-offending”.

The Court also noted that the facts and circumstances in Ow Gan Wee bore similarity to the Accused’s case. In Ow Gan Wee, the accused (M/50) pleaded guilty to three charges, viz, one charge of enhanced possession of Class A controlled drug, one charge of theft of cashcard (stored value $11) and cash of about $500 to $600 and one charge of theft of cash of $526. He also consented for 5 charges to be taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing, viz, three charges of theft, one charge of drug consumption with enhanced punishment under Section 33(3A) of the MDA and one charge of possession of drug utensils. The Accused was sentenced to 8 years’ preventive detention.

Under step one, the likely sentence of the Accused in Ow Gan Wee was a global sentence of 8 years. Under step two, the DJ found that the eligibility for MAS was a neutral factor; and under step three, the DJ found that a sentence of corrective training or preventive detention would not be unduly disproportionate. The Accused’s report had placed him in the “high risk/need” level of criminal re-offending and coupled with his long list of antecedents, the DJ found that it outweighed his protective factors. Considering that the Accused had already been sentenced previously to two stints of corrective training but continued to reoffend, the DJ found it was expedient for the protection of the public that a sentence of preventive detention be imposed on the Accused. This sentence was upheld by the High Court.

It is clear from Ow Gan Wee that preventive detention can be a suitable sentencing option even for theft charges of relatively low value. The High Court in Ow Gan Wee at [7(a)] stated as follows:

In this case, the Accused’s offending was even more serious than Ow Gan Wee with more serious drug and property offences and with a total of 13 charges instead of 8 charges in Ow Gan Wee. The Accused had also already gone through 14 years’ corrective training for his previous conviction, but it was clear that the previous stint of corrective training was insufficient to deter him from re-offending.

Thus, for the reasons set out above, especially in [58], the Court was of the view that it was expedient for the protection of the public for the Accused to be detained for a substantial period of time and preventive detention would be an appropriate sentence.

Ultimately, the duration of the term of PD was guided by the extent to which the public required protection from the Accused. The High Court in Mark Kalaivanan s/o Tamilarasan at [102] cited that some of the factors to be considered were (i) the offender’s sense of remorse for the offence, (ii) the nature and extent of his antecedents and sentence(s) previously imposed, (iii) his responses to previous punishment, (iv) his likelihood of re-offending and (v) his age.

After taking into account the above factors and the circumstances of the Accused’s case, the Court did not consider it necessary to give a period of 10 years as submitted by the Prosecution and agreed with Counsel that 8 years’ preventive detention would be sufficient.

Hence, the Court was satisfied that it was expedient for the protection of the public that the Accused be sentenced to 8 years’ preventive detention.

Conclusion

Thus, having carefully considered all the relevant circumstances of the case, the Court sentenced the Accused to 8 years’ preventive detention.