PP v Lee Wei Zheng Winston: Criminal Revision, Sentencing, and Caning
In Public Prosecutor v Lee Wei Zheng Winston, the High Court of Singapore reviewed a decision by a district judge regarding the sentencing of Lee Wei Zheng Winston for rioting with a deadly weapon. The district judge initially sentenced Lee to 30 months' imprisonment and six strokes of the cane but later reduced the caning to three strokes based on incorrect information about a co-accused's sentence. The High Court, upon application by the district judge, found that the reduction was improper and exceeded the district judge's powers. While the High Court agreed that the original sentence should be reinstated to maintain parity with other offenders, it also held that the additional strokes of caning could not be administered because the initial portion of the sentence had already been executed, violating the principle against caning in installments. The High Court allowed the application for criminal revision and ordered that the original sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane be reinstated, but that the further three strokes not be inflicted.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Original sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane reinstated, but the further three strokes not be inflicted.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
High Court revises District Judge's sentencing in a rioting case, addressing parity and the prohibition against caning in installments. Original sentence reinstated, but further caning not inflicted.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Applicant | Government Agency | Appeal Allowed | Won | Jaswant Singh of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Lee Wei Zheng Winston | Respondent | Individual | Original sentence reinstated with modification | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Jaswant Singh | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
4. Facts
- The respondent pleaded guilty to rioting with a deadly weapon.
- The district judge initially sentenced the respondent to 30 months’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane.
- The district judge reduced the sentence of caning to three strokes based on incorrect information.
- The amended sentence of three strokes of the cane had already been carried out.
- The district judge applied to the High Court to exercise its powers of revision.
- The High Court found that the district judge had no power to alter the original sentence.
- The High Court ordered that the original sentence be reinstated, but that the further three strokes not be inflicted.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Lee Wei Zheng Winston, Cr Rev 12/2002, [2002] SGHC 187
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Respondent pleaded guilty to amended charge of rioting with a deadly weapon. | |
| District judge sentenced the respondent to 30 months’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane. | |
| District judge reduced the respondent’s sentence of caning from six strokes to three strokes. | |
| District judge applied to the High Court to exercise its powers of revision. | |
| Amended sentence of three strokes of the cane carried out. | |
| High Court allowed the application for criminal revision. |
7. Legal Issues
- Power of Subordinate Courts to Alter Judgments and Sentences
- Outcome: The district judge had no power to alter the original sentence of caning.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Rectification of mistakes
- Clerical errors
- Revisionary Powers of the High Court
- Outcome: There was sufficient injustice to warrant the exercise of the court’s revisionary powers as the district judge had exceeded his powers in amending the original sentence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Exercise of revisionary jurisdiction
- Serious injustice
- Caning in Instalments
- Outcome: An order that the further three strokes be given to the respondent would be tantamount to the infliction of caning in instalments, since the respondent had already received the first three strokes and would necessarily have had to take the additional three strokes on a second occasion. Such an order would be contrary to s 231 of the CPC.
- Category: Substantive
- Parity of Sentencing
- Outcome: The amended sentence was not commensurate with the culpability of the respondent and violated the principle of parity.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Reinstatement of original sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Rioting with a deadly weapon
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chiaw Wai Onn v PP | High Court | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 445 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of section 217(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the alteration of judgments by subordinate courts. |
| Ang Poh Chuan v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR 326 | Singapore | Followed for the principles governing the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction, emphasizing the need for serious injustice. |
| Akalu Ahir v Ramdeo Ram | Indian Supreme Court | Yes | AIR 1973 A 2145 | India | Cited regarding the power of revision conferred on a High Court to set right grave injustice. |
| PP v Nyu Tiong Lam | Unknown | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR 273 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the High Court previously granted applications for criminal revision where a judge exceeded his powers. |
| Liow Eng Giap v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1971] 1 MLJ 10 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle of parity in sentencing. |
| PP v Ramlee and another action | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 539 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of parity in sentencing. |
| Liaw Kwai Wah & Anor v PP | Malaysian Supreme Court | Yes | [1987] 2 MLJ 69 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the prohibition of caning being executed in installments. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) | Singapore |
| s 217 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) | Singapore |
| s 231 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) | Singapore |
| s 256(b)(iii) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) | Singapore |
| s 268 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224) | Singapore |
| s 147 Penal Code (Cap 224) | Singapore |
| s 148 Penal Code (Cap 224) | Singapore |
| s 149 Penal Code (Cap 224) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) | Singapore |
| s 23 Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) | Singapore |
| Prisons Act (Cap 247) | Singapore |
| s 77(1) Prisons Act (Cap 247) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal revision
- Sentencing
- Caning
- Parity of sentencing
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Revisionary powers
- Instalments
- Rioting
- Deadly weapon
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal revision
- Sentencing
- Caning
- Parity
- Criminal Procedure Code
- High Court
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Sentencing | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Administrative Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing
- Revision