Judgment Header
Phua Song Hua v Public Prosecutor [2004] SGHC 33
Loading…
[2004] SGHC 33
General Division of the High Court of Singapore24 Feb 2004MA 117/2003
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Cited in 8 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Later cases and laws citing this decision
“with different offences as there would no longer be any basis for comparison: see for example Tay Huay Hong v Public Prosecutor [1998] 3 SLR(R) 290 at [39]–[40] and Phua Song Hua v Public Prosecutor [2004] SGHC 33 at [38]. However, I do not think that those cases support the proposition that the court should be blind t”
“convicted of the offence of rioting is sentenced not for his individual acts considered in isolation but for his participation in the collective offence of rioting: Phua Song Hua v Public Prosecutor [2004] SGHC 33 at [39]. In such cases, the injuries suffered by the victim may be considered in sentencing even if it cou”
“proportionate as a result of charging decisions made by the Prosecution. Chao JA explained, in this context at [38] and [45], the comment made by Yong Pung How CJ in Phua Song Hua v Public Prosecutor [2004] SGHC 33 at [38] when comparing an accused who claimed trial with co-offenders who had pleaded guilty to less seri”
“sought a term of 18 months’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane. The Prosecution contended that this was consistent with the observation of the High Court in Phua Song Hua v Public Prosecutor [2004] SGHC 33 at [42], where it was noted that for rioting, the courts have consistently imposed between 18 to 36 months”
“recognised the seriousness of the offences of statutory rape (see Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor [2017] 2 SLR 449 (“Terence Ng”) at [51]) and rioting (see Phua Song Hua v Public Prosecutor [2004] SGHC 33 (“Phua Song Hua”) at [39]). The DJ did not deny that the offences were serious but identified several fact”
“ion sought an indicative starting sentence of 26 months’ imprisonment and at least 3 strokes of the cane. The Prosecution relied on observations made by the court in Phua Song Hua v Public Prosecutor [2004] SGHC 33 (“Phua Song Hua”) at [42], that the courts had consistently imposed sentences of between 18 to 36 months’”
“(a) First, it was not in line with the sentencing precedents, and, in particular, the case of Phua Song Hua v Public Prosecutor [2004] SGHC 33 (“Phua Song Hua”), which held (at [42]) that rioting offences of the non-secret society variety should ordinarily be punished with a term of 18 to 36 months’ imprisonment and th”
“hould be treated alike. However, the principle of parity is irrelevant where there are different offences because there is no longer any common basis for comparison: Phua Song Hua v Public Prosecutor [2004] SGHC 33 at [38]. Moreover, the principle of parity is not to be applied in a rigid and inflexible manner. The pri”
Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Judgment Header
Phua Song Hua v Public Prosecutor [2004] SGHC 33
Case Metadata
Case No: MA 117/2003
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2004-02-24
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.