PP v Mahat bin Salim: Revision of Sentence, Corrective Training, and Caning
In Public Prosecutor v Mahat bin Salim, the High Court of Singapore, presided over by Yong Pung How CJ, revised the sentence of Mahat bin Salim on April 28, 2005. Salim had initially been sentenced to reformative training for charges under ss 394, 356, and 380 of the Penal Code. However, this was found to be inappropriate due to his age exceeding the limit for reformative training. The court allowed the petition and ordered a sentence of five years of corrective training and 12 strokes of the cane, considering Salim's criminal history and the need for rehabilitation.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Petition allowed; sentence of reformative training set aside; sentence of five years of corrective training and 12 strokes of the cane ordered.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court revised a reformative training sentence for Mahat bin Salim, imposing five years of corrective training and 12 strokes of the cane for theft and robbery.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Petition Allowed | Won | Ravneet Kaur of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Mahat bin Salim | Respondent | Individual | Sentence Revised | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ravneet Kaur | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
4. Facts
- The respondent pleaded guilty to charges under ss 394, 356, and 380 of the Penal Code.
- The district judge initially sentenced the respondent to reformative training.
- The district judge was alerted that the respondent was over the age limit for reformative training.
- The respondent committed snatch theft, theft in dwelling, and robbery with hurt.
- The respondent had previous convictions for theft and possession of housebreaking elements.
- The respondent was 21 years and 2 months old on the date of his conviction.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Mahat bin Salim, Cr Rev 6/2005, [2005] SGHC 83
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Snatch theft committed by the respondent. | |
| Theft in dwelling committed by the respondent. | |
| Robbery with hurt committed by the respondent. | |
| Respondent pleaded guilty to all three charges. | |
| District judge sentenced the respondent to reformative training. | |
| District judge alerted to the fact that the accused was over the age limit for reformative training. | |
| High Court allowed the petition and ordered that the respondent be sentenced to five years of corrective training and to receive 12 strokes of the cane. |
7. Legal Issues
- Revision of Proceedings
- Outcome: The High Court exercised its revisionary powers to set aside the sentence of reformative training.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Exercise of revisionary powers by the High Court
- Setting aside sentence
- Corrective Training
- Outcome: The court found the respondent suitable for corrective training and imposed a sentence of five years.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Appropriateness of corrective training sentence
- Length of corrective training
- Power to order caning in addition to corrective training
- Sentencing - Mandatory Caning
- Outcome: The court determined that caning was mandatory under s 394 and ordered 12 strokes of the cane.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Interpretation of 'shall be liable' vs 'shall be punished'
- Discretion of court in ordering caning
8. Remedies Sought
- Revision of sentence
- Corrective training sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery under s 394 of the Penal Code
- Snatch theft under s 356 of the Penal Code
- Theft in dwelling under s 380 of the Penal Code
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing Guidelines
- Criminal Revision
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ang Poh Chuan v PP | High Court | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR 326 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court must be exercised judiciously and only when there is a serious injustice. |
| Ngian Chin Boon v PP | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 119 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court must be exercised judiciously and only when there is a serious injustice. |
| PP v Mohamed Noor bin Abdul Majeed | High Court | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR 17 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court must be exercised judiciously and only when there is a serious injustice. |
| Koh Thian Huat v PP | High Court | Yes | [2002] 3 SLR 28 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court must be exercised judiciously and only when there is a serious injustice. |
| Kua Hoon Chua v PP | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR 386 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the principal aim of corrective training is to rehabilitate the offender and reduce recidivism and that pre-sentencing reports are called for by judges only as a matter of practice. |
| G Ravichander v PP | High Court | Yes | [2002] 4 SLR 587 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the principal aim of corrective training is to rehabilitate the offender and reduce recidivism and for the principles to be considered when determining the length of the sentence of corrective training. |
| PP v Wong Wing Hung | High Court | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 329 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the principal aim of corrective training is to rehabilitate the offender and reduce recidivism and that the CPC does not contain anything which makes it mandatory for the court to call for a pre-sentencing report before passing a sentence of corrective training. |
| Yusoff bin Hassan v PP | High Court | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 1032 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that corrective training only supplants a sentence of imprisonment and does not supplant any other forms of punishment apart from imprisonment. |
| PP v Perumal s/o Suppiah | High Court | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR 308 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that corrective training only supplants a sentence of imprisonment and does not supplant any other forms of punishment apart from imprisonment. |
| PP v Lee Soon Lee Vincent | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 552 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that prima facie, the words “shall be liable” contain no obligatory or mandatory connotation. |
| PP v Nurashikin bte Ahmad Borhan | High Court | Yes | [2003] 1 SLR 52 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that prima facie, the words “shall be liable” contain no obligatory or mandatory connotation. |
| PP v Loo Kun Long | High Court | Yes | [2003] 1 SLR 28 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that prima facie, the words “shall be liable” contain no obligatory or mandatory connotation. |
| Ng Chwee Puan v R | High Court | Yes | [1953] MLJ 86 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that the word “liable” contains no obligatory or mandatory connotation. |
| Chng Gim Huat v PP | High Court | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR 262 | Singapore | Cited as an illustration where the phrase “shall be liable” may be construed to be of mandatory effect. |
| Ramanathan Yogendran v PP | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR 563 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court cannot of its own accord dispense with a mandatory sentence of caning. |
| Lai Oei Mui Jenny v PP | High Court | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR 305 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that hardship to the accused’s family has very little mitigating value, unless there are exceptional circumstances at hand. |
| Ng Chiew Kiat v PP | High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 370 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that hardship to the accused’s family has very little mitigating value, unless there are exceptional circumstances at hand. |
| Tan Fook Sum | High Court | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR 523 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that hardship to the accused’s family has very little mitigating value, unless there are exceptional circumstances at hand. |
| Lim Choon Kang v PP | High Court | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR 927 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that hardship to the accused’s family has very little mitigating value, unless there are exceptional circumstances at hand. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 394 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 356 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 380 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 268 | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) s 23 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 12(1) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 379 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 414 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 13(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2004 Rev Ed) s 97 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Reformative training
- Corrective training
- Revisionary powers
- Caning
- Sentencing
- Recidivism
- Mitigation
- Mandatory sentence
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal
- Sentencing
- Revision
- Corrective Training
- Caning
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Sentencing | 100 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Offences | 80 |
| Theft | 70 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing