Close | Public Prosecutor v De Livera Shanela Ruwanthi [2009] SGDC 512 |
| DAC 35910/2009, MAC 3246/2009, 3247/2009, MA 408/2009 | |
| 30 Dec 2009 | |
| District Court | |
| Kaur Jasvender | |
| S Puspha (Assistant Public Prosecutor) for the prosecution, Chelva R Rajah, SC and Chen Chee Yen (Tan Rajah & Cheah) for the accused |
Judgment
30 December 2009 District Judge Jasvender Kaur: 1 The accused, a 21-year-old Sri Lankan national, is a student at the LaSalle College of the Arts. She faced one charge under s. 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241) and two counts of shop theft under s. 379 of the Penal Code (Cap 224). The prosecution proceeded on the following two counts to which she pleaded guilty: Exhibit C1 that you, on or about the 31st day of March 2009, at the office of the M/s Cold Storage Supermarket inside Parkway Parade Shopping Centre, 80 Marine Parade Road, Singapore, did corruptly offer a gratification of an unspecified amount of money to two agents, to wit, one Po Kheng Chye Kelvin and one Bay Boon Sian Darens, officers in the employ of M/s Standard Security and Investigation Services Pte Ltd, and attached to the M/s Cold Storage Supermarket located at Parkway Parade Shopping Centre, as an inducement for the said Po Kheng Chye Kelvin and Bay Boon Sian Darens to do an act in relation to their principal’s affairs, to wit, to release you from their custody prior to the arrival of the police, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Cap 241. Exhibit C2 that you, on 31st March 2009, at 8.30pm at Cold Storage, Parkway Parade Shopping Centre, Singapore, did commit theft of the under mentioned items: 1. one box of Haagen Dazs cookies and cream crunch valued at $6.10, 2. one box of Lean Cusine pasta valued at $12.95, 3. one tub of Haagen Dazs strawberry ice cream valued at $5.70, 4. one box of Birds Eyes fish fingers valued at $12.05, amounting to a total value of $36.80 in the possession of Bay Boon Sian Darens, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 379 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224. 2 The accused admitted to another charge of theft committed on 26 March 2009 at the same supermarket and gave her consent for this offence to be taken into consideration for the purpose of sentence. She was fined $5,000 on the s. 6(b) charge and $1,000 on the s. 379 charge. Against that sentence of a fine of $6,000, the Public Prosecutor has appealed. Facts of the offences 3 On 31 March 2009 at about 8pm, the accused went to the Cold Storage supermarket. She was observed taking one box and one tub of ice cream, a box of pasta and a box of fish fingers from the frozen food section. She then proceeded to the household section and placed the four items in her sling bag. Subsequently, she left the store without making payment. She was stopped by two security officers outside the store and brought to the office. The four stolen items with a total value of $36.80 were recovered from her bag. 4 In the office, the security officer Bay Boon Sian Darens recorded the accused’s admission and the other security officer Po Kheng Chye Kelvin called the police. The accused told the security officers that she will give everything if they did not call the police. Kelvin warned her that it was wrong for her to bribe them but the accused continued to tell them that she will give whatever cash she had if they were to let her go. However, the security officers called the police. The accused had $152 in her wallet. Mitigation 5 The accused came to Singapore in July 2008 to study for a diploma in Interior Design at the LaSalle College of the Arts. Her various talents were highlighted. She is a skilled pianist and violinist. She has achieved Grade 5 level in classical ballet from the Royal Academy of Dance. She played different sports in college and excelled in swimming in which she captained her school team at national level competitions. She also won a gold medal for an artwork in the International All Island Art competition conducted by UNESCO in 2001. Testimonial letters written by the Principal and the Programme Coordinator of the Art of LaSalle College were also tendered. The testimonials spoke well of her and her offences were said to be out of character. 6 In respect of the offences, it was submitted that they were committed during a period when the accused was under great mental stress and was suffering from depression since February 2009. It was said that she lacked sleep and found it difficult to cope with her school work as a result of disturbances caused by a new roommate in her hostel room. With respect to the corruption offence, it was said: Shanela was extremely frightened and distressed whilst she was being held up at the supermarket’s office. Acting in a moment of fear to avoid her transgression of the law, Shanela pleaded with the store-security personnel to “take what she had” … to pay for what she took and release her. Any surplus left after payment they could keep. She was not looking to take it back. 7 In addition, it was said that the accused was detained for almost 24 hours after her arrest and she found it to be a traumatic and frightening experience. The accused’s letter to Bedok Police Station after her release was also exhibited. In it she wrote: I have already suffered from more mental agony and humiliation as you can well understand and therefore request you to please excuse … me without further punishment. My father too is extremely disappointed with my action. I promise you that I will never even think of repeating my offence in the future. Sentence Theft charge 8 The offence of theft under s. 379 carries a term of imprisonment up to three years or fine or both. 9 Theft of items of low value by a first offender are dealt with by a fine (see PP v Packir Malim Corruption charge 10 The offence under s. 6(b) carries an imprisonment term up to five years or a fine up to $100,000 or both. 11 The primary sentencing consideration in all corruption cases is undoubtedly that of general deterrence. The present case did not involve an offer of a bribe to a government servant. The issue before me was whether a custodial sentence was warranted on the facts of the present case. As stated in PP v Cheong Hock Lai and Other Appeals 12 The prosecution did not make any submission on sentence but tendered a table of sentencing precedents containing eight cases (see exhibit ‘C’). Four of the cases related to bribes offered to CISCO officers who performed law enforcement duties and were thus not strictly relevant. In the remaining four cases involving security officers, custodial sentences were imposed in three of them and a fine was imposed in one. The brief facts of these four cases are as follows: (i) PP v Abdul Rahman Bin Ali Maimuthu (DAC 43680/03) – the offender, aged 25 years, was detained at Funan IT Mall for a suspected offence of robbery. It was later established that he was involved in using stolen credit cards and whilst being escorted to the security guard room, he offered an unspecified sum of money and jewellery to a security guard to release him. He faced 19 other charges – 16 counts of cheating involving stolen credit cards under s. 420 of the Penal Code, one count under s. 411, one count under s. 379 and one count under s. 323. The offender had prior conviction and was sentenced to five years corrective training. (ii) PP v Alamgir Miah Monju Matbar (aged 31 years) (DAC 26205/08)– the offender’s friend was refused entry by a security officer into a condominium as he produced a work permit that did not belong to him. The work permit was detained by the security officer. The offender approached the security officer to ask for the return of the work permit. The request was turned down and the offender took out $50 from his wallet and pushed it towards the security officer. When the offer was rejected, the offender repeated his offer. The offer was again turned down. The offender was fined $3,000, in default three weeks’ imprisonment. (iii) PP v Ji Qun (DAC 38606/05) - the offender (aged 39 years) who was a construction worker returned to his worksite at night to steal some steel cables. When he was caught by the security officer, he took out a $50 note from his wallet and offered it to the security officer to induce him not to report him. He was charged for theft as a servant under s. 381 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) and the s. 6(b) charge. He received six weeks’ imprisonment for the s. 6(b) charge. (iv) PP v Lim Yang Kwang (DAC 3737/04) – the offender (aged 49 years) was using a crane to lift sheet piles from a construction site onto a lorry when he was caught by a security officer. The offender placed two $50 notes into the shirt pocket of the security officer as an inducement not to report him to the police. He had another similar charge of offering $400 to the same security officer taken into consideration. The offender had antecedents for traffic offences. He was sentenced to two months imprisonment for the theft charge and one month’s imprisonment for the s. 6(b) charge. 13 I was of the view that the transgressions in the four cases were far more serious than the transgression of the accused in the present case. Further, the offenders in three of the cases had not only made a verbal offer but had also taken out money to tempt the security officers. They were also matured individuals. In contrast, the accused here is a young lady of 21 years of age. She was still a student. It was quite clear to me that she had learned her lesson. As seen from her letter to the Bedok Police Station, her arrest, the consequent embarrassment and the disappointment caused to her father has had a powerful impact on her. Her transgression of shoplifting was relatively minor. I accepted that she acted in a moment of fear without fully appreciating the seriousness of her actions. In the circumstances, I was of the view that a fine would be sufficient punishment and a quantum of $5,000 would have an element of deterrence.
