Public Prosecutor v Lim Hou Peng Jackson [2016] SGHC 53

The accused is a male Singaporean who is now 41 years old. He pleaded guilty to the following two charges:

The accused also admitted the offence stated in the following third charge and consented to have it taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing.

The punishments provided by law in respect of the charges are as follows. In respect of the first charge, s 304(b) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) provides for imprisonment for a term that may extend to 10 years or fine or caning or any combination of such punishments. In respect of the second charge, s 33A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”) prescribes for imprisonment of not less than five years and not more than seven years and for caning of not less than three strokes and not more than six strokes. In respect of the third charge which was taken into consideration, s 33(1) of the MDA, read with the Second Schedule of the said Act, prescribes a maximum punishment of three years’ imprisonment, a fine of $10,000 or both.

I sentenced the accused to four years and six months’ imprisonment in respect of the first charge. In respect of the second charge, I sentenced him to the minimum of five years’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane. I also ordered these sentences to run consecutively with effect from 20 November 2014. The total sentence was therefore nine years and six months’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane.

The Statement of Facts

The accused admitted all the facts set out in the following statement of facts:

The accused’s antecedents

The accused has a criminal record. In 1992, he was convicted under s 380 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Ed) and in 1997, he was convicted under s 143 of the same Code. In 2001, the accused was convicted for the consumption of Ketamine, a controlled drug, and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. In 2003, he was convicted for trafficking in Ketamine and for consumption of Norketamine. For these two drug offences, he received a global sentence of six years’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane. The 2001 and 2003 drug consumption offences formed the basis for the enhanced punishment in the second charge.

The Prosecution’s submissions on sentence

The Prosecution submitted that the sentences for both the first and second charge should run consecutively and urged the court to impose a global sentence of at least 11 years’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane on the accused.

In respect of the first charge, the Prosecution submitted that an imprisonment term of at least six years was warranted. The Prosecution submitted that the precedents could be separated into two categories, one where significant mitigating factors were present and another, where no significant mitigating factors were present.

The Prosecution cited the cases of PP v Lim Ah Seng [2007] 2 SLR(R) 957 (“Lim Ah Seng”), PP v Md Mosharah and others [2009] SGHC 163 (“Md Mosharah”) and PP v Oon Oon Sang Tee CC 11/2006 (unreported) (“Oon Oon Sang Tee”) as examples of cases that had significant mitigating factors. In Lim Ah Seng and Oon Oon Sang Tee, the offenders were suffering from psychiatric conditions that contributed to their commission of the offence. In Md Moshara, the offender had endured psychological abuse by the deceased for some four months prior to the time of the offence. In respect of these three cases, the sentences imposed by the court ranged from two and a half to four and a half years’ imprisonment.

In support of its position that the present case fell within the category of cases with no significant mitigating factors, the Prosecution cited the cases of PP v Yan Haibing CC 7/2007 (unreported), Tan Chee Hwee and another v PP [1993] 2 SLR(R) 493 and PP v Budiman bin Hassan [1994] SGHC 28 (“Budiman”). The Prosecution noted that the case of Budiman was subsequently appealed and the sentence of six years’ imprisonment was enhanced to nine years’ imprisonment. In respect of all these cases, the sentences imposed by the court ranged from seven to nine years’ imprisonment.

The Prosecution argued that the present case belonged to the category of cases with no significant mitigating factors but fell on the lower end of the sentencing range within the category. The accused did not suffer from any psychiatric condition at the time of the offence. The Prosecution submitted that although the deceased was shouting and acting hysterically, she was not provoking the accused and did not pose a threat to him. The Prosecution submitted that there was an aggravating factor, namely that the accused’s acts were fuelled by his desire to evade apprehension by the police as both he and the deceased had just consumed ‘Ice’. Nonetheless, the Prosecution contended that the facts in the present case were still less aggravating than the precedents cited. This is because the offenders in those cases played a more active role in initiating the offence and they choked the victims to death.

In respect of the second charge, the Prosecution submitted that the accused should be sentenced to a five-year imprisonment term and three strokes of the cane. This is the minimum sentence prescribed by s 33A(1) read with s 33A(5)(a) of the MDA for accused persons who have at least two prior convictions for consumption of controlled drugs.

The Prosecution further submitted that the sentences in respect of the first and the second charges should run consecutively. This is because they were separate and distinct offences. The cumulative sentence would also not offend the one-transaction principle or the totality principle.

The mitigation plea

The Defence did not object to the Prosecution’s sentencing position in respect of the second charge. It is, after all, the minimum that the court is required to impose by law. The Defence also did not contest the Prosecution’s submission that the two sentences should run consecutively. Instead, the Defence based the bulk of its submissions on the appropriate sentence that should be meted out for the first charge. It argued that a sentence of three to four years’ imprisonment was adequate.

In mitigation, the following points were raised:

(a) The accused’s actions were not premeditated. Instead, they were committed in the spur of the moment.

(b) The accused and the deceased were in a loving and long-term relationship at the time of the offence. They even had plans to get married. As such, the accused never intended to end the deceased’s life.

(c) The accused was not the aggressor. He had tried repeatedly to diffuse the situation by pacifying the deceased and telling her to calm down. However, as the deceased was in a drug-fuelled frenzy, she continued screaming and abusing the accused physically and verbally.

(d) The accused’s actions were not motivated by malice or ill-will. He had resorted to pressing the blanket over the deceased’s mouth because she was screaming and struggling. He was worried that the noise would cause their neighbours to call the police and he did not want both of them to get into trouble.

(e) The accused showed instant and genuine remorse. When he realised that the deceased had stopped moving, he immediately sought help. He did not flee the scene and also did not even think of getting rid of the drug paraphernalia. Instead, he performed Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation on the deceased while the ambulance was on its way. In this regard, the Defence cited the case of PP v Lim Boon Seng [2004] SGHC 113 (“Lim Boon Seng”), in which the accused had also displayed instant and genuine remorse and had rendered aid to the victim. In Lim Boon Seng, I sentenced the accused to three and a half years’ imprisonment.

(f) The accused has lost the woman he was planning to marry. While he was in remand, his father died from cancer and he was unable to attend the funeral.

(g) The accused’s paternal aunt and her family visit him regularly in prison and are able and willing to provide him with a stable family environment upon his release from prison.

The court’s decision

I will first address the issue of sentence in respect of the second charge. It is undisputed that the accused should be sentenced to five year’s imprisonment and three strokes of the cane. I agree as there was no reason to impose a sentence beyond the minimum required by law. The charge taken into consideration was a drug-related charge but it was in essence part of the process of drug consumption under the second charge as the accused was practically caught in the act. I therefore sentenced the accused to five years’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane for the second charge.

In respect of the first charge, it was clear that the accused did not harbour any intention to hurt the deceased, much less to kill her. Before the deceased began to behave erratically, they were happily consuming Ice in the flat. He merely wanted to stop her from screaming and getting both of them into trouble with the law. Unfortunately, he used too much force and exerted too much pressure on the deceased in the process.

The accused showed instant and genuine remorse. As mentioned above, the Defence cited Lim Boon Seng for the principle that instant and genuine remorse of the accused serves as a strong mitigating factor. In Lim Boon Seng, the accused was indeed contrite and had rendered aid to the deceased. He also shouted to his friend to call the police and the ambulance to the scene after the stabbing incident. However, the deceased in that case was also the aggressor and he was of bigger build than the accused (Lim Boon Seng at [18]). In the present case, the autopsy report on the deceased noted that the deceased was a “thin female” of 154cm in height and 34 kg in weight. In contrast, when the accused rose in court to speak, he certainly looked much taller and bigger than the deceased’s dimensions. Defence counsel, Ms Jennifer Lim, pointed out that the accused was not of such good build before his arrest. Nevertheless, he had the advantage of height and size over the deceased and had used disproportionate force on her.

While it is true that the two charges involved distinct offences, the present case was unique in that one offence led indirectly to the other. The accused’s (and the deceased’s) drug consumption led ultimately to the altercation and the struggle. Given that the accused will be serving five years’ imprisonment for the second charge, I think a consecutive imprisonment term of four and a half years in respect of the first charge would be adequate punishment on the facts here.

I therefore sentenced the accused to a total of nine and a half years’ imprisonment with effect from 20 November 2014, the date of his arrest. In addition, he is to receive the mandatory minimum of three strokes of the cane. This case shows how the consumption of illegal drugs can sometimes lead to very sad and fatal consequences which were never intended.