Senthamel Selve v PP: Theft in a Building Case - Shoplifting at Shop N Save Supermarket
Senthamel Selve d/o Ramanathan appealed to the High Court of Singapore against her conviction by a district judge for theft in a building used for the custody of property, specifically for shoplifting fish from a Shop N Save supermarket. The High Court, presided over by Chief Justice Yong Pung How, dismissed the appeal, finding that Selve intended to leave the store without paying for the fish, based on witness testimony and the implausibility of her explanation.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Senthamel Selve appeals her conviction for theft at Shop N Save. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding she intended to leave without paying for fish.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Senthamel Selve d/o Ramanathan | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Kenneth Siow Itming |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Lee Lit Cheng |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Kenneth Siow Itming | Siow Itming & Co |
| Lee Lit Cheng | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
4. Facts
- Selve entered Shop N Save and selected a packet of fish.
- Selve placed the fish into an NTUC plastic bag she was carrying.
- Selve walked towards the exit without paying for the fish.
- A security guard stopped Selve near the escalators outside the store.
- Selve claimed she intended to weigh the fish before paying.
- The weighing machines were located inside the store, near the vegetables and fruits section.
- Selve had been to the store at least twice before.
5. Formal Citations
- Senthamel Selve d/o Ramanathan v Public Prosecutor, MA 2/2002, [2002] SGHC 143
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Theft occurred at Shop N Save supermarket | |
| Arrest made | |
| DAC 30073/2001 District Court Conviction | |
| High Court dismissed the appeal |
7. Legal Issues
- Theft
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant intended to take the fish out of the store without paying for them, thereby committing the offence of theft.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
9. Cause of Actions
- Theft
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Shoplifting
11. Industries
- Retail
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lim Ah Poh v PP | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 713 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will not disturb findings of fact unless they are clearly reached against the weight of the evidence. |
| Yap Giau Beng Terence v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 656 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will not disturb findings of fact unless they are clearly reached against the weight of the evidence. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| s 380 of the Penal Code, Cap 224 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Theft
- Shoplifting
- Intention
- Weighing machine
- Shop N Save
- NTUC plastic bag
15.2 Keywords
- Theft
- Shoplifting
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
- Appeal
- Conviction
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Theft
- Shoplifting
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Theft