Soong Hee Sin v Public Prosecutor: Appeal on Sentence for Criminal Breach of Trust
Soong Hee Sin appealed to the High Court of Singapore against a 15-month imprisonment sentence for criminal breach of trust under s 408 of the Penal Code. Soong Hee Sin, while employed as a sales representative, misappropriated $10,485.22. Yong Pung How CJ allowed the appeal, reducing the sentence to nine months, citing mitigating factors such as the appellant's guilty plea and lack of prior convictions.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against a 15-month sentence for criminal breach of trust. The High Court reduced the sentence to nine months, citing mitigating factors.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal partially successful | Partial | Hay Hung Chun of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Soong Hee Sin | Appellant | Individual | Appeal allowed in part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Hay Hung Chun | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Lim Kia Tong | Lim Kia Tong & Partners |
4. Facts
- The appellant pleaded guilty to criminal breach of trust under s 408 of the Penal Code.
- The appellant misappropriated $10,485.22 while employed as a sales representative.
- The appellant collected money from 21 customers but failed to hand it over to the company.
- The appellant was unrepresented in the lower court.
- No restitution was made by the appellant up to the time of the initial hearing.
- The appellant admitted to the offence upon arrest.
5. Formal Citations
- Soong Hee Sin v Public Prosecutor, MA 324/2000, [2001] SGHC 50
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant employed as a sales representative of Chin Bee Trading | |
| Appellant began collecting various sums of money from customers | |
| Appellant left the company's employ | |
| Appellant arrested | |
| Appeal allowed and sentence reduced |
7. Legal Issues
- Sentencing for Criminal Breach of Trust
- Outcome: The High Court found the initial sentence to be somewhat excessive and reduced it.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Relevance of restitution as a mitigating factor
- Manifest excessiveness of sentence
- Related Cases:
- [1995] 3 SLR 44
- [1999] 4 SLR 307
- Duty of Judge to Inform Unrepresented Accused
- Outcome: The court held that there is no duty on the judge to inform an unrepresented accused of potential defenses or mitigating factors.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Independence of the trial judge
- Impartiality of the trial judge
- Related Cases:
- [1998] 1 SLR 815
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Criminal Breach of Trust
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Sentencing
11. Industries
- Trading
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rajeevan Edakalavan v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR 815 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a judge is not obligated to inform an unrepresented accused of potential defenses or options. |
| Packir Malim v PP | High Court | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 429 | Singapore | Cited to support the view that an accused person's ignorance of the law does not shift the burden of defense onto the judge. |
| Krishan Chand v PP | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR 291 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that restitution shows remorse, genuine good character, and reformation. |
| Sim Yeow Seng v PP | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR 44 | Singapore | Cited as a sentencing precedent for first offenses under s 408 of the Penal Code involving sums between $5,000 and $10,000. |
| Gopalakrishnan Vanitha v PP | High Court | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 307 | Singapore | Cited as a sentencing precedent for misappropriation amounts ranging from $11,369.73 to $30,113.29. |
| PP v Asok Kumar | High Court | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 358 | Singapore | Cited as a sentencing precedent for CBT by an agent under s 409 of the Penal Code. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| s 408 Penal Code (Cap 224) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal breach of trust
- Sentencing
- Restitution
- Mitigating factors
- Unrepresented accused
- Manifestly excessive
- Plea of guilt
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal breach of trust
- Sentencing appeal
- Singapore High Court
- Mitigating factors
- Restitution
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Sentencing | 90 |
| Breach of Trust | 75 |
| Criminal Revision | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Criminal Procedure