Public Prosecutor v Chan Jun Hong [2026] SGHC 88

This is the Prosecution’s appeal against the decision of the District Court to call for a probation suitability report and, after accepting the recommendations in the report, ordering the respondent to undergo supervised probation for 15 months. The probation order was to be subject to the following conditions:

(a) time restriction from 11pm to 6am;

(b) performance of 80 hours of community service; and

(c) the respondent’s parents to sign a bond for $5,000.

Facts

The respondent, born on 6 April 2002, pleaded guilty to the following charge:

The punishment for this offence is imprisonment for up to five years or a fine of up to $10,000 or both.

The respondent admitted to the facts set out in the Statement of Facts (“SOF”) below:

The decision of the District Court

Before the District Court, the Prosecution submitted that imprisonment should be imposed on the respondent. However, counsel for the respondent urged the District Court to place the respondent on probation. As mentioned earlier, the District Court made a probation order with the conditions set out at [1] above. It found that the respondent had demonstrated an extremely strong propensity for reform and was therefore satisfied that rehabilitation should replace deterrence as the dominant sentencing consideration. The District Court also agreed with the recommendations in the probation suitability report.

The Prosecution appealed and applied for a stay of the probation order pending the appeal. Counsel for the respondent had no objections to the stay. The District Court ordered the stay of the probation order and granted bail to the respondent.

My decision

At the time of the offence, the respondent was 21 years and two months old. On 4 July 2024, he was enlisted for National Service in the Singapore Armed Forces (“SAF”). He will complete his National Service on 3 July 2026.

I was informed by the Prosecution that the victim had indicated that he wished to pursue civil remedies against the respondent. Therefore, the question of compensation by the respondent was not raised.

As the respondent was an adult at the time of the offence, the appeal before me centred on whether deterrence should be replaced by rehabilitation as the dominant sentencing consideration. The Prosecution contended, relying on established case law, that rehabilitation would be the dominant operative concern for an adult offender only if he demonstrated an extremely strong propensity for reform or if there existed other exceptional circumstances warranting the grant of probation. The Prosecution submitted that there were no exceptional circumstances raised and there was inadequate evidence of an extremely strong propensity for reform.

The probation officer relied on the respondent’s account of the facts relating to the offence and there were at least two instances where his account contradicted the material facts set out in the admitted SOF. Despite accepting that the respondent had been untruthful in recounting the facts of the offence, the probation officer maintained her recommendations in the report.

The Prosecution submitted that the respondent ought to have been sentenced to imprisonment for at least 12 to 14 weeks, in line with the sentencing framework set out in Ang Boon Han v Public Prosecutor [2024] 5 SLR 754. This submission took into account the respondent’s rehabilitative progress and the recommended 30% reduction in sentence set out in the Sentencing Advisory Panel’s Guidelines on Reduction in Sentences for Guilty Pleas.

Counsel for the respondent submitted that it was while the respondent was undergoing basic military training that he first demonstrated an exceptional propensity for reform. He admitted to his then trainer, 3SG Raphael Ong Yun Sen, that he had committed the offence and that he realised that it was caused by alcohol intoxication. He expressed his regret at having drunk alcohol at the time of the offence and expressed his realisation that he became aggressive when drunk. 3SG Raphael Ong counselled him to avoid alcohol and to avoid friends who liked to drink. The respondent expressed his commitment not to make the same mistake again.

Counsel for the respondent also tendered an undated letter from the respondent’s superior in the SAF, commending the respondent for his conscientious approach to duty, his diligence, reliability and good discipline. Although this letter should have been tendered before the District Court and not only at the appeal, I accepted it as there was no reason to doubt its authenticity.

Counsel for the respondent asked that the probation order be affirmed in its totality. Alternatively, if a term of imprisonment was considered more appropriate, he submitted that it should be two to four weeks less than the Prosecution’s suggestion of 12 to 14 weeks. This was to acknowledge the progress made by the respondent which evidenced some propensity for reform.

After hearing the parties, I made the following remarks in deciding to allow the Prosecution’s appeal against sentence:

After conferring with the respondent, his counsel said that the respondent wished to start serving his imprisonment immediately. The imprisonment term of two months is therefore with effect from 24 April 2026. Counsel for the respondent also informed me that he would contact the SAF about the respondent’s imprisonment term so that the reason for his absence from his National Service is made known.