Public Prosecutor v JIY

District Judge Shaiffudin Saruwan:

[1] This is an appeal against sentence.

[2] The accused was represented by Mr Teo Choo Kee of CK Teo & Co. DPP Cheronne Lim was the prosecutor.

[3] There was a gag order prohibiting the publication of the name, address, photograph, any evidence or any other thing likely to lead to the identification of the victim in relation to the charge under s 377BE(2) of the Penal Code 1871 (“PC”) which was taken into consideration (DAC-918423-2025).

[4] The accused pleaded guilty to the four charges below –

(a) DAC-906016-2025:

LT1 consumption of methamphetamine under s 8(b)(ii) punishable under s 33A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 (“MDA”)(“the LT1 consumption charge”). There was also a breach of the basic condition of the remission order punishable under s50T(1)(a) Prisons Act 1933 (“PA”). The accused was liable to an enhanced sentence not exceeding 58 days.

(b) DAC-908319-2025:

Enhanced possession of methamphetamine under s 8(a) punishable under s 33(3B) MDA (“the enhanced consumption charge”). There was also a breach of the basic condition of his remission order punishable under s50T(1)(a) PA. The accused was liable to an enhanced sentence not exceeding 58 days.

(c) DAC-918509-2025:

Possession of a knuckleduster without authority under s 7(1) of the Corrosive and Explosives Substances and Offensive Weapons Act 1958 (“the offensive weapon charge”). There was also a breach of the basic condition of his remission order punishable under s50T(1)(a) PA. The accused was liable to an enhanced sentence not exceeding 58 days.

(d) DAC-921201-2025:

Enabling one Lennard Lee to operate his UOB bank account by sharing his banking details, and failing to take reasonable steps to ascertain the purpose of Leonard Lee being able to operate the said bank account under s 55A(1)(a)(i) read with s 55A(1)(b)(ii) punishable under s 55A(5) of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992 (“the CDSA charge”). There was also a breach of the basic condition of his remission order punishable under s50T(1)(a) PA. The accused was liable to an enhanced sentence not exceeding 377 days.

[5] The following seven charges were taken into consideration –

(a) Two counts of robbery under s 392 PC.

(b) One count of possession of drug-taking utensils under s 9 punishable under s 33(1) MDA and punishable under s 50T(1)(a) PA.

(c) One count of threatening to distribute an intimate video recording of the victim engaging in sexual intercourse under s 377BE(2) punishable under s 377BE(3) PC.

(d) One count of possession of a truncheon under s 22A(2) of the Miscellaneous Act 1906 (“MOA”).

(e) One count of using insulting behaviour on the victim by making him kneel in a compromising position to apologise under s 3(1)(a) punishable under s 3(2) of the Protection from Harassment Act 2014 (“POHA”).

(f) One count of providing the internet banking user ID and password for his UOB account to one Lennard Lee resulting in multiple unauthorised transactions punishable under s 3(1)(a) read with s 12(1) of the Computer Misuse Act 1993 (“CMA”) and punishable under s 50T(1)(a) PA.

[6] The salient facts as extracted from the statement of facts were –

Introduction:

a. From 24 May 2023 to 20 March 2025, the accused was subject to a remission order.

The CDSA charge:

b. On 9 March 2024, the accused opened an account with UOB bearing account number XXXXXXX774.

c. Sometime on or before 9 March 2024, one Lennard Lee, whom the accused claimed was his secondary school classmate, purportedly asked to ‘borrow’ the accused’s bank account as Lennard resided overseas in Thailand and did not have a Singapore bank account. The accused agreed and sent the UOB account’s internet banking user ID and password to Lennard via WhatsApp message. The accused did not take any steps to ascertain Lennard’s true purpose of being able to operate the UOB account.

d. After the accused had relinquished control of the UOB account, he did not carry out any transactions. However, from 9 March 2024 to 22 March 2024, a total of S$424,058.61 flowed through the UOB account. A sum of S$292,887.70 was traced to scam proceeds. The victims included an elderly victim aged 77 years old who transferred an unascertained amount to the UOB account.

The LT1 consumption charge and the enhanced possession charge:

e. On 22 January 2025, at about 8.30 am, police officers searched the car which the accused and his girlfriend were in. They seized various drug taking paraphernalia, empty ziplock bags and two packets containing crystalline substances. The latter were analysed and found to contain not less than 0.94 grams of methamphetamine. The accused admitted that the methamphetamine belonged to him and was for his own consumption.

f. The accused’s urine sample was also tested and found to contain methamphetamine. The accused admitted that he had consumed “ice”, the street name for methamphetamine, the night before his arrest.

The offensive weapon charge:

g. The police also seized a knuckleduster from the car. The accused admitted that he had bought the said item from a Telegram group for about S$200. A knuckleduster was a scheduled weapon under the Second Schedule to the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act 1958. The accused had it in his possession without any lawful purpose.

h. After his arrest on 22 January 2025, the accused underwent medical examination/observation at the Drug Rehabilitation Centre (“DRC”) on 23 January 2025. He was discharged on 28 January 2025 whereupon he was directed by the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) to attend at Tanglin Police Division on 4 February 2025 at 11.00 am. However, the accused absconded failed to do so. On 24 February 2025, a warrant for the accused’s attendance at Tanglin Police Division on 13 March 2025 at 11.00 am, was issued. Again, the accused failed to do so. On 2 April 2025 at about 11.05pm, the accused was arrested and taken into custody. He was produced in Court on 4 April 2025 and has been held in remand since.

[7] On 20 December 2011, the accused was placed on 24 months’ probation for committing theft in dwelling and extortion. On 13 January 2014, he re-offended by committing another extortion offence. His probation order was revoked and he was sentenced to undergo Reformative Training.

[8] On 25 October 2017, he was put on 12 months’ SAF detention for consumption and possession of methamphetamine charges.

[9] On 3 July 2020, he was sentenced to a total of five years’ and six months’ imprisonment and fined $3000 for consumption and possession of methamphetamine and for unlawful possession of a scheduled weapon. Multiple charges of methamphetamine consumption and possession, possession of drug-taking utensils and failure to report for urine tests, and unlawful possession of a scheduled weapon, were taken into consideration.

[10] The prosecution sought the following sentences –

[7] to 8 months and enhanced sentence (ES) 75 days

[6] months and ES 56 days

[5] years and 3 strokes and ES 29 days

[5] years and 3 strokes and ES 12 days

[2] years and ES 29 days

[2] years and ES 12 days

[6] months and 6 strokes and ES 9 days

[6] months and 6 strokes and ES 6 days

[6] years 1 month to 6 years 6 months and 9 strokes and ES 142 days

[5] years 12 months and 9 strokes and ES 88 days

[11] In so far as these two charges were concerned, the facts surrounding the commission of these offences did not warrant any uplift from the mandatory minimum sentences prescribed for these offences. As such, for the LT1 consumption charge, I imposed a sentence of five years’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane. For the enhanced possession charge, I imposed a sentence of two years imprisonment.

[12] On the issue of the enhanced sentences (ES), the defence submitted that for the LT1 consumption and enhanced possession charges, the accused was at the tail-end of the remission period, therefore the ES should be calibrated at 20% of the remaining remission period (RRP) of 58 days each, thereby putting the ES at 12 days each. I respectfully disagreed. For both these charges, they fell into Band 2 of the framework in Abdul Mutalib bin Aziman v PP and other appeals [2021] 4 SLR 1220 (“Abdul Mutalib bin Aziman”). These offences were serious offences, and they were similar to the offences for which he was granted remission. Also, he had re-offended within one and half years after his conditional release. This showed that there was a lack of commitment towards rehabilitation and reintegration. As such, I agreed with the prosecution that an ES sentence calibrated at 50% of the RRP of 58 days was appropriate. This would put the ES at 29 days each.

[13] Applying the SAP guidelines for scam-related offences, the starting point for the offence was at six months’ imprisonment. A total of S$424,058.61 had flowed through the account in question. This represented a significantly high amount which warranted an uplift of 3 months. Further, one of the scam victims was a vulnerable person which warranted a further uplift of one month. This placed the sentence at 10 months’ imprisonment. After factoring the 30% sentencing discount for his early plea of guilty, the final sentence imposed was seven months’ imprisonment. The defence’s submission for six months’ imprisonment was inappropriate as it did not address the uplifts that were warranted.

[14] With regard to the ES, I noted that the offence was not similar to the offences in respect of which he was granted remission. And it was committed almost a year after his release. Under these circumstances, I agreed with the prosecution that the case fell into Band 1 of the framework in Abdul Mutalib bin Aziman, and therefore an ES of 20% of the RRP of 377 days was appropriate, putting the ES at 75 days.

[15] The circumstances of the offence did not warrant any uplift or downward revision from the usual benchmark for such offences. As such, I impose the sentence of six months’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane. I noted that the sentence had taken into account the sentencing discount of 30%: PP v Teo Kok Wah [2022] SGDC 136 at [22]).

[16] With regard to the ES, the offence was not similar to the offences in respect of which he was granted remission. Under the circumstances, I agreed with the prosecution that the case fell into Band 1 of Abdul Mutalib bin Aziman framework. The appropriate calibration should be in the region of 15% of the RRP of 58 days which put the ES at 9 days.

[17] I disagree with both the prosecution’s and the defence’s submissions that the imprisonment sentences in the LT1 consumption charge, the CDSA charge and the offensive weapon charge, should run consecutively.

[18] The accused had not just re-offended when he was under a conditional remission which ended on 20 March 2025. He continued with his offending behaviour after that date. On 26 March 2025, he committed another series of offences which included two counts of robbery under s 392 PC involving one victim, threatening to distribute an intimate recording of the same robbery victim engaging in sexual intercourse under s 377BE(2) PC, using insulting words on the same victim under s 3(1)(a) POHA, and unlawful possession of a truncheon under s 22A(2) MOA. Overall, the level of criminality demonstrated by him was very high and this should be reflected in the overall sentence. As such, I ordered the sentences in the LT1 consumption charge, the enhanced possession charge and the CDSA charge to run consecutively. The total aggregate sentence was therefore seven years’ and seven months’ imprisonment and an ES of 142 days’ imprisonment.

[19] The imprisonment sentence is backdated to the date of his arrest, 22 January 2025, to take into account the periods he was in custody and/or remand, and to exclude the period he was on bail. He was on bail from 28 January 2025 to 2 April 2025. I noted that after the arrest, the Accused was directed to undergo medical examination at the Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC) from 23 January 2025 to 28 January 2025. As the admission into DRC was in relation to the arrest for the proceeded drug charges before me, I was of the view that this period should be taken into account as the period he was in custody/remand for the purpose of computing his earliest date of release.

[20] The Accused has lodged an appeal against sentence. He is presently serving sentence.