Close

Suit No:	DAC 56019/2009, MA 438/2009
Decision Date:	05 Jan 2010
Court:	District Court
Coram:	Ng Peng Hong
Counsel:	Insp Allaudeen for the prosecution, Accused in person

Judgment

District Judge Ng Peng Hong

1          The accused pleaded guilty before the Community Court to a charge of shop theft, an offence punishable under Section 380 of Penal Code Chapter 224. He was found guilty and convicted. He was sentenced to 9 months’ imprisonment. The accused is appealing against the sentence and is now serving his sentence. I now give the reasons for my decision.

2          Briefly these were the facts. The Complainant was one Lim Soo Hoon, Female / 57 years old. She was the Store Manager of 7-Eleven store located at Blk 123 Yishun St 11 #01-495.

3          Investigations revealed that on the 16.10.2009 at or about 9.15 pm, while the complainant was in her office at the 7-Eleven store located at Blk 123 Yishun Street 11#01-495, Singapore, a building used for the custody of property, she saw the accused, through the CCTV, took one can of Baron’s Strong Brew beer, valued at S$7.65 from the freezer in the said store and drank it. When approached and requested to pay for the can of beer by the complainant, the accused refused and informed that he was tired and wanted to drink.

4          The accused then took one bottle of Thirty Three Alcoholic Cider valued at S$6.50 drink from the freezer in the store, drank it and wanted to leave the store but was stopped by the complainant. Complainant then called for the Police. The accused admitted that he had no money to pay for the drinks and had no intention to pay for them. The total value of the two items is S$14.15.

5          The accused admitted to these facts without any qualification.

Mitigation

6          In mitigation, the accused pleaded for leniency

Antecedents

7          The accused has a string of previous convictions relating to drug and theft. His first known brush with the law was when he was a juvenile. That was in 1988, when he was sentenced to reside at the Singapore Boys’ Home for 3 years for an offence of snatch theft (s356 Penal Code). Thereafter he was convicted of a series of theft and drug charges. I will highlight those theft convictions after 2000. In 2004, he was jailed 10 weeks for an offence of fraudulent possession of property.  In 2006, he was sentenced to a total of 5 months for an offence under s380, Penal Code. In Nov 2007, he was again convicted of theft under s380 of the Penal Code (2 counts) and was sentenced to 18 months for each charge. The sentences were to run concurrently. His last previous theft conviction under s380 of the Penal Code was in December 2008 when he was sentenced to 9 months’ imprisonment.

Sentencing Considerations

8          Deterrence was the main sentencing consideration in view of the accused’s antecedents. The punishment prescribed for the offence committed by the accused was a term of imprisonment of up to 7 years and also liable to fine. I noted that the amount involved was only $14.15.

Precedents

In the case of Public Prosecutor v Lim Chee How Daud (MA 239/97/01), the offender pleaded guilty to a charge under s 380 for stealing various groceries valued at $74.29 from a supermarket. He admitted the theft when confronted by a supermarket staff outside the supermarket. All stolen items were recovered. Offender had a previous conviction for cheating and another previous conviction for theft in dwelling. For the latter, he had been sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment in 1985. Offender, aged 45 years, claimed to suffer from heart problems: he was in fact admitted to hospital with heart disease during one of the adjournments of the case. The District Judge stated that he was giving the offender a short sentence of two months’ imprisonment on medical and compassionate grounds. On the prosecution’s appeal, the sentence was enhanced to 12 months’ imprisonment. I am aware that ultimately the sentence to be passed must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Reasons for my decision

9          Based on the accused’s previous convictions and the current conviction under s380 of the Penal Code, the accused can be considered for either corrective training or preventive detention. On the other hand, I was also mindful of the principle of proportionality in view of the fact that the value of the stolen items was only $14.15. Hence, I decided against calling for reports for purposes of imposing a sentence of corrective training or preventive detention.

10        In arriving at the sentence for the section 380 offence, I took into account the following extract from the commentary in the Second Edition of the Practitioners’ Library, Sentencing Practice in the Subordinate Courts, LexisNexis and the Subordinate Courts, Singapore, 2003, which provides at pages 362-363 as follows:

“The offence of theft in a dwelling under s 380 attracts a mandatory imprisonment term. The prosecutions brought under this section are usually for shoplifting offences committed in supermarkets and shops…….

The significant considerations in assessing sentence would be the value of the stolen items, the circumstances of the theft (eg premeditated, abuse of position by employee in committing theft, etc), age of the offender and the offender's criminal record (especially concerning property offences).”(emphasis mine)

11        I also took into account the IMH report which states that the accused ‘s primary problem was alcohol dependence accompanied by traits of antisocial and narcissistic personality disorder. This probably accounted for the theft of beer and alcoholic cider.

12        The IMH psychiatrist was also of the opinion that the accused was not suffering from a major mental illness or psychotic symptoms at the material time.

13        In my view that fact that the accused committed this theft offence very soon after his release from prison for theft was an aggravating factor.

14        When approached and requested to pay for the can of beer by the complainant, the accused refused and informed that he was tired and wanted to drink. This nonchalant attitude on the part of the accused suggested that he was not bothered as to whether he would be apprehended for the theft and punished in accordance with the law.

15        In passing sentence I also took into account the fact that the accused had pleaded guilty. I noted that the value of the stolen property was $14.15.

16        Taking all the relevant circumstances into consideration, I sentenced the accused to 9 months’ imprisonment.

Up