Close | Public Prosecutor v Mohammad Farhan Bin Jasmin [2010] SGDC 24 |
| DAC 25720/2009, MA 437/2009 | |
| 19 Jan 2010 | |
| District Court | |
| Sarjit Singh | |
| Puvanes (APP) for the prosecution, Bajwa for the defence |
Judgment
19 January 2010 District Judge Sarjit Singh: 1. The accused, Mohammad Farhan Bin Jasmin, was charged as follows:- DAC 25720/2009 “You are charged that you, on the 23rd day of March 2009, at or about 3.30 am, at Blk 16 Jalan Tenteram #07-106, Singapore, together with Joshuel Pravin Vinson, in furtherance of the common intention of you both, while acting on behalf of an unlicensed moneylender known as ‘BB’, did commit an act, likely to cause annoyance to the flat owner Soh Wei Lun and his family, in connection with a loan taken by one Soh Noi Poh, and in the course of committing the said act, caused damage to certain property, to wit, by splashing pink and blue paint on the main door and window of unit #07-106 and using an indelible black marker pen to write ‘O$P$ Soh Noi Poh #07-106 833XXXXX’ on the walls at the 7th and 8th floor lift landings, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 28(2)(a) and Section 28(3)(a)(i) of the Moneylenders’ Act 2008 (Act No. 31 of 2008) read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224. 2. He pleaded guilty to the above charge and admitted the Statement of Facts without qualification. The facts revealed: “The complainant is Soh Wei Lun, m/28 years old, residing at Blk 16 Jalan Tenteram #07-106. 2) The debtor is Soh Noi Poh. He is the complainant’s uncle. 3) The accused is Mohammad Farhan Bin Jasmin, M/21 years old, NRIC No: S 8741413-B. 4) The co-accused is Joshuel Pravin Vinson, M/19 years old, NRIC No: S 9007825-I. 5) On 23 Mar 2009 at or about 4.09 am, the complainant called Police and reported that a loanshark had harassed him at his house by splashing paint and writing loanshark-related graffiti. As the said unit was installed with CCTV surveillance facilities, the recordings then revealed that two male subjects were responsible for the harassment. Based on the CCTV recordings, the Police published images of the two male subjects in major local newspapers on 2 May 2009 and sought for public assistance to provide information. Subsequently on 4 May 2009, both the accused and co-accused persons surrendered themselves to the Police and admitted they were the culprits responsible for the act of harassment. 6) Investigation revealed that on 22 Mar 2009, the co-accused had agreed to work for an unlicensed moneylender known as ‘BB’ to proceed to various debtors’ units to cause harassment with a view to pressurize them to make their repayments promptly. The co-accused then sought the assistance of the accused to drive him to the said venue and he offered to pay the accused $20 for the petrol consumption. 7) The co-accused was instructed by the said ‘BB’ to harass the debtors by splashing paint at their main doors and writing of loansharrk-related graffiti on the walls at the common corridor or lift landings of the blocks. In return for his service, he was promised an amount of $50/- for every unit he harassed. FACTS RELATING TO THE CHARGE (DAC 25720/2009) 8) Investigation revealed that on 23 Mar 2009, at or about 3.30 am, as directed to the co-accused by the unlicensed moneylender ‘BB’, both the accused and co-accused arrived at Blk 16 Jalan Tenteram. They took the lift up and came out on the 7th floor. Thereafter, the co-accused used an indelible black marker pen and began writing loanshark-related graffiti ‘O$P$ Soh Noi Poh #07-106 833XXXXX’ on the walls of the 7th and 8th floor lift landings. 9) After that, both the accused and co-accused proceeded to the complainant’s unit and began to splash pink and blue paint on the main door and window. They then fled from the scene thereafter using the staircase. The co-accused paid the accused $20 the following morning as promised. 10) Both the accused and co-accused had thus, in the furtherance of the common intention of them both, committed on behalf of an unlicensed moneylender known as ‘BB’, an act likely to cause annoyance to the complainant Soh Wei Lun and his family, in connection with a loan taken by his uncle Soh Noi Poh, by splashing pink and blue paint at the main door and window of unit #07-106, and also used an indelible black marker pen to write graffiti ‘O$P$ Soh Noi Poh #07-106 833XXXXX’, and they had thereby defaced and caused damage to the said property. 11 The accused person is charged accordingly.” 3. In Mitigation (Exhibit D1) his defence counsel pleaded as follows: a) accused comes from a good family. Both his parents are working well. His father is a Operations Team Leader at the Vopak Banyan Terminal while his mother works as a Secretary at Fullerton Hotel; b) he has completed ‘N’ levels. He was a responsible student and had no record of improper conduct in school; c) he is serving National Service. His army testimonial revealed that the accused has shown great dedication to his job and was committed to performing his responsibilities as a solider; d) the accused is a first time offender; e) he pleaded guilty to the charge; f) since the accused is a young boy of 21 years the Court should not impose caning on him. 4. The Prosecution addressed the Court on sentence and urged this Court to impose a deterrent sentence. (see Exhibit P1). 5. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, his mitigation plea and the Prosecution submissions the court sentenced the accused to 12 months imprisonment and 3 strokes of the cane. 6. The accused now appeals against the sentence. Sentencing Consideration 7. a) In Public Prosecutor v Kwong Kok Hing “Our criminal law is, in the final analysis, the public’s expression of communitarian values to be promoted, defended and preserved. These communitarian values include the preservation of morality, the protection of the person, the preservation of public peace and order, respect for institutions and the preservation of the state’s wider inertests; see PP v Law Aik Meng What ought the proper penalty be? … [The] classical principles [of sentencing] are summed up in four words: retribution, deterrence, prevention and rehabilitation. Any judge who comes to sentence ought always to have those four classical principles in mind and to apply them to the facts of the case to see which of them has the greatest importance in the case with which he is dealing.” b) In Public Prosecutor v Mohammad Al-Ansari bin Basri “In deciding which of the four principles applies with the greatest effect, it is axiomatic that the principles that are most relevant and have the greatest importance in a case would affect the type and extent of sentence imposed: see PP v Tan Fook Sum 8. In cases of illegal moneylending and harassment related activities the overriding principle of sentencing is clearly based on deterrence. 9. In determining sentence this Court considered: a) Prevalence of illegal moneylending activities. Moneylending offences have increased and this is a matter of concern. The statistics from the Singapore Police Force indicate a dramatic increase in moneylending and loanshark – harassment related offences. (see Exhibit P1 page 4). Page 85 of the Sentencing Practice in the Subordinate Courts states: “13 Prevalence of offece Prevalence affects the gravity or seriousness of an offence (Ooi Joo Keong v PP …. The criminal justice system has always proceeded upon the assumption that punishment deters and that the proper response to increased prevalence of crime of a particular type is to increase the level of punishment for that crime. I think that courts have to make the assumption that the punishments which they impose operate as a deterrent. That being so, I think that it follows that the proper response, and the response which is expected by the community at large, to the increased prevalence of serious crime is increased punishment for that crime.” b) Such offences are difficult to detect. Illegal loanshark harassment cases are not easy to detect and solve. Unless the perpetrators are caught in the act, they are often few leads for the Police to follow up on especially since most of the offences are committed in the early hours of the morning. This Court noted that the act of harassment in this case was committed at 3.30am when the victims and residents were fast asleep. The accused and the co-accused picked a time because they knew that they will not be detected. They would have escaped detection had it not been for the CCTV that caught them in the act. From the CCTV recordings the police were able to get photographs of the accused and co-accused. The police published the photographs in news papers and called upon the public to provide information. The accused surrendered himself. Even though the accused surrendered himself it was not because of any remorse on his part. He knew that it was only a matter of time before he was caught by the police. In Wong Kai Chuen Philip v PP Although the appellant surrendered himself to the CAD, it is significant to note that this event occurred at the time when he really had no other choice.......the voluntary surrender by an offender and a plea of guilty by him in Court are factors that can be taken into account in mitigation as they may be evidence of remorse and a willingness to accept punishment for his wrongdoing. However I think that the relevance and the weight to be placed on them must depend on the circumstances of each case. I do not see any mitigating value in a robber surrendering to the police after he is surrounded and has no means of escape, or much mitigation value in a professional man turning himself in in the face of absolute knowledge that the game is up.” c) The victims in this case were innocent victims. They were not the debtor. They became deliberate targets of the accused and co-accused to get the actual debtor to pay up. The act of harassment committed by the accused and co-accused caused embarrassment and anxiety not only to the innocent victims but to his immediate neighbours also. d) Such offences also affect public safety and causes public fear and disquiet. Illegal moneylending activities creates a breach of the peace and good public order. This Court agreed with the Prosecution when it stated in the submissions (Exhibit P1): “18) That loansharking and other related harassment activities have created a pervasive sense of fear and trepidation in the community. whilst simultaneously threatening our sense of community safety and security in the heartland communities is best reflected by the frequency of reports that have appeared recently in the newspapers discussing the scourge of such activities, with an average of one media article focusing on the problem every other day in the first half of 2009. More recent reports pertaining to the steps that residents have felt it necessary to take, including the setting up of both formal and informal neighbourhood watchdogs, and the installation of a plethora of expensive video surveillance equipment in various common corridors of HDB flats to safeguard their homes (to the extent even of requiring chaperones to accompany residents home) only go to further impress the point that the problem is becoming an increasingly pervasive one; actions that plainly transcends the harm that it inflicts to the parties directly involved, and causes irreparable harm to the public, and residents’, as well as their perception of the safety of their homes and surrounding neighbourhood. 19) In this regard, the steps taken by the community as a whole to respond to this growing problem is reflective of the fact that such acts of harassment and offences pertaining to unlicensed moneylending are a menace not just to their debtors but also to a wide range of innocent victims who have had no prior dealings with them, both innocent neighbours (see, for example, Your Honour’s comments in PP v Seet Peng Huat In PP vs Law Aik Meng “(c) Public disquiet: Certain crimes, in addition to harming their immediate victims, also have the wider-fell impact of triggering unease and offending the sensibilities of the general public. A deterrent sentence is therefore necessary and appropriate to quell public disquiet and the unease engendered by such crimes” e) This Court also noted both from the facts and his mitigation plea, the accused was not facing any difficult financial circumstances or forced by the loan shark to commit the offence. The accused voluntarily agreed to help the co-accused in the illegal moneylending offence. And in return he was paid $20 for the petrol expenses. f) The defence urged this Court not to impose canning in this case because the accused was a young offender and canning would leave scars on him. Canning “is seen as an individual deterrent and as a deterrent to everyone else in general”: Chia Kim Heng Frederick v PP 10. This Court was of the view that a deterrent sentence, both at the specific and general level was called for. He was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment term and 3 strokes of the cane. 11. The accused now appeal against sentence.
