Tuen Huan Rui Mary v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Breach of Trust & Sentencing Appeal
Tuen Huan Rui Mary appealed to the High Court of Singapore against her conviction and sentence by the District Court for two counts of criminal breach of trust under section 406 of the Penal Code. The charges involved misappropriation of $30,000 and $20,000 entrusted to her by Png Beng Hong. The High Court, presided over by Chief Justice Yong Pung How, dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding that the District Judge's findings were supported by evidence. However, the High Court allowed the appeal against the sentence, deeming the original 27-month imprisonment on each charge as manifestly excessive and ordering a reduced sentence of 15 months on each charge to run consecutively, resulting in a total sentence of 30 months.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Tuen Huan Rui Mary appeals against conviction and sentence for criminal breach of trust. The High Court dismisses the appeal against conviction but allows the appeal against sentence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Partial Loss | Partial | |
| Tuen Huan Rui Mary | Appellant | Individual | Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed. | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Edwin San | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Eddy Tham | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Chandra Mohan K Nair | Tan Rajah & Cheah |
4. Facts
- The appellant was convicted on two counts of criminal breach of trust.
- The appellant was entrusted with a POSB cheque of $30,000 and a DBS cheque of $20,000 by Png Beng Hong.
- The appellant encashed the cheques but did not use the proceeds as instructed.
- The appellant claimed the cheques were given to her by Tan Kah Miang to encash and return the proceeds.
- The district judge found the appellant was involved in a share trading agreement with Png Beng Hong and Tan Kah Miang.
- The district judge found the appellant's credit was impeached due to discrepancies in her statements.
- The High Court found the original sentence of 27 months imprisonment on each charge to be manifestly excessive.
5. Formal Citations
- Tuen Huan Rui Mary v Public Prosecutor, MA 107/2002, [2003] SGHC 157
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Post Office Savings Bank cash cheque, number 511446, dated 21 July 1999 and issued by Png Beng Hong for an amount of $30,000, was encashed. | |
| Development Bank of Singapore cash cheque, number 396566, dated 21 July 1999 and issued by Png Beng Hong for an amount of $20,000, was encashed. | |
| Daniel Ng faxed a print-out to Cecilia seeking settlement of her share trading losses on the Kim Eng account which amounted to $124,725.74. | |
| Tan Kah Miang was arrested in the midst of the trial. | |
| Appellant gave a statement to the Commercial Affairs Department. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Criminal Breach of Trust
- Outcome: The appellant was convicted of criminal breach of trust.
- Category: Substantive
- Sentencing
- Outcome: The High Court found the original sentence manifestly excessive and reduced it.
- Category: Procedural
- Findings of Fact by Trial Judge
- Outcome: The appellate court upheld the trial judge's findings of fact.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against Conviction
- Appeal against Sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Criminal Breach of Trust
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Azman bin Abdullah | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 704 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court should be slow to disturb a district judge’s findings of fact unless they are plainly wrong or against the weight of evidence. |
| Chen Weixiong Jerriek v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2003] SGHC 103 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is the prerogative of the court to refuse to consider as a first time offender anyone who has been charged with multiple offences, even if he has no prior convictions. |
| Balasubramanian Palaniappa Vaiyapuri v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR 314 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the absence of antecedents had to be weighed in the balance against other considerations, the most crucial of which was the public interest. |
| Krishan Chand v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR 291 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is no general rule mandating the giving of a discount for a person of advanced years. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ong Ker Seng | High Court | Yes | [2001] 4 SLR 180 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that ill health is not a mitigating factor save in the most exceptional circumstances. |
| Zeng Guo Yuan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 321 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an accused person’s bad behaviour in court can be considered an aggravating factor. |
| Wong Kai Chuen Philip v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1990] SLR 1011 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of proportionality in sentencing in respect of criminal breach of trust cases. |
| Amir Hamzah bin Berang Kutty v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2003] 1 SLR 617 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in sentencing accused persons on charges of criminal breach of trust, the court’s discretion is never restricted by the amount involved and each case must be looked at on its own facts. |
| Tan Koon Swan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1986] SLR 126 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that one of the grounds on which an appellate court may interfere in a sentence imposed by a lower court is if it is satisfied that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. |
| Jimina Jacee d/o C D Athananasius v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 205 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that due weight should be accorded to the district judge`s assessment of the veracity or credibility of the witness, given that he had the benefit of observing the demeanour of the particular witness. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224) s 406 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal Breach of Trust
- Share Trading Agreement
- Entrustment
- Misappropriation
- Sentencing
- Manifestly Excessive
- Mitigating Factors
- Aggravating Factors
- First Offender
- Restitution
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Breach of Trust
- Sentencing Appeal
- Singapore High Court
- Misappropriation
- Penal Code
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Breach of Trust | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Offences | 85 |
| Theft | 80 |
| Remedies | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Trusts