Tan Kay Beng v PP: Theft & Criminal Intimidation Sentencing Appeal

Tan Kay Beng appealed to the High Court of Singapore against his sentences for theft and criminal intimidation, following an incident involving Wong Loke Hoon. The District Court had sentenced Tan to 12 months for theft and 21 months for criminal intimidation. Rajah J allowed the appeal, finding the sentences manifestly excessive. The sentence for theft was substituted with a $1,000 fine, and the sentence for criminal intimidation was reduced to three months' imprisonment.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal against sentences for theft and criminal intimidation. The High Court found the sentences manifestly excessive, substituting a fine for the theft conviction and reducing the imprisonment term for criminal intimidation.

1.7 Decision Date

6 July 2006

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Tan Kay Beng	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Allowed	Won	Subhas Anandan, Sunil Sudheesan
Public Prosecutor	Respondent	Government Agency	Appeal Allowed	Lost	Lee Lit Cheng

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
V K Rajah	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Subhas Anandan	Harry Elias Partnership
Sunil Sudheesan	Harry Elias Partnership
Lee Lit Cheng	Deputy Public Prosecutor

4. Facts

Tan supplied silk screens to Wong, who refused to pay the outstanding debt of $880 after OP KTV ceased business.
Tan met John, who offered to help collect the debt from Wong.
Tan, John, and John's companion met Wong at a coffee shop.
John procured a bread knife and pointed it at Wong's neck.
Wong handed over his waist pouch containing $166 and a Nokia 8210 mobile phone.
Tan took the cash and phone but returned the SIM card to Wong.
Tan pleaded guilty to theft and criminal intimidation.

5. Formal Citations

Tan Kay Beng v Public Prosecutor, MA 12/2006, [2006] SGHC 117
Tan Kay Beng v Public Prosecutor, , [2006] SGDC 25

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2003-10-01	Wong requested that Tan supply 20 pieces of “Japan Velvet” silk screens
2004-02-08	Tan and John met Wong at a coffee shop
2004-02-08	Theft and criminal intimidation offences committed
2006-07-07	High Court allowed the appeal

7. Legal Issues

Manifestly Excessive Sentencing
- Outcome: The High Court found the original sentences manifestly excessive and reduced them.
- Category: Substantive
Relevance of Antecedents in Sentencing
- Outcome: The court held that the prior gaming conviction was irrelevant as a sentencing consideration.
- Category: Substantive
Deterrence as a Sentencing Consideration
- Outcome: The court found that the trial judge placed undue emphasis on deterrence without adequate justification.
- Category: Substantive
Mitigating Factors: Plea of Guilt and Restitution
- Outcome: The court noted that the trial judge did not give sufficient weight to the appellant's guilty plea.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Appeal against sentence

9. Cause of Actions

Theft
Criminal Intimidation

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Appeals
Sentencing Guidelines

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Roslan bin Abdul Rahman v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 2 SLR 211	Singapore	Cited to support the principle that dissimilar antecedents are generally irrelevant in sentencing.
Leong Mun Kwai v PP	High Court	Yes	[1996] 2 SLR 338	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the number and nature of previous convictions are relevant considerations in sentencing.
Veen v The Queen [No 2]	High Court of Australia	Yes	164 CLR 465	Australia	Cited for the principle that antecedent criminal history can be considered in sentencing to show a continuing attitude of disobedience of the law.
PP v Tan Fook Sum	Unclear	Yes	[1999] 2 SLR 523	Singapore	Cited inaccurately; quotation should have been attributed to Caird.
Caird	English Court of Appeal	Yes	(1970) 54 Cr App R 499	England	Cited regarding offences committed by a group attracting greater severity, but distinguished as dealing with violent demonstrations.
Phua Song Hua v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2004] SGHC 33	Singapore	Cited as an example where the High Court applied Caird in cases of rioting.
Pannirselvam s/o Anthonisamy v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2005] 1 SLR 784	Singapore	Cited as an example where the High Court applied Caird in cases of rioting.
PP v Luan Yuanxin	Unclear	Yes	[2002] 2 SLR 98	Singapore	Cited as a benchmark authority for the proposition that the use of a weapon invariably justified a deterrent custodial sentence, but distinguished from the present case.
Chua Siew Lin v PP	Unclear	Yes	[2004] 4 SLR 497	Singapore	Cited to emphasize that Luan Yuanxin should be employed as a sentencing precedent only with caution.
PP v Tan Beng Hoe	District Court	Yes	[2002] SGDC 121	Singapore	Cited as a case of marital violence where the accused had used a chopping knife to confront the victim, his wife.
Lwee Kwi Ling Mary v Quek Chin Huat	Unclear	Yes	[2003] 2 SLR 145	Singapore	Cited as a case where the offender threatened to kill the victim whilst holding a chopper.
Ramanathan Yogendran v PP	Unclear	Yes	[1995] 2 SLR 563	Singapore	Cited as a case where a sentence of six months’ imprisonment was imposed for criminal intimidation.
Regina v Cunningham	Unclear	Yes	[1993] 1 WLR 183	England	Cited for the principle that the level of public fear or alarm generated by an incident is a relevant sentencing consideration.
Chua Gin Synn v PP	Unclear	Yes	[2003] 2 SLR 179	Singapore	Cited as a case where the appellant pleaded guilty to one charge of theft of several items amounting in value to $259.70.
PP v Nurashikin bte Ahmad Borhan	Unclear	Yes	[2003] 1 SLR 52	Singapore	Cited as a case where the value of the item was $9.70 and the term of imprisonment was two weeks.
Xia Qin Lai v PP	Unclear	Yes	[1999] 4 SLR 343	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a guilty plea is relevant as a mitigation factor when the plea of guilt is a genuine act of contrition.
Krishan Chand v PP	Unclear	Yes	[1995] 2 SLR 291	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a guilty plea is relevant as a mitigation factor when resources which would otherwise be expended at trial are saved.
Fu Foo Tong v PP	Unclear	Yes	[1995] 1 SLR 448	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the value of a guilty plea is substantially attenuated when the public interest considerations nevertheless necessitate a deterrent sentence.
Wong Kai Chuen Philip v PP	Unclear	Yes	[1990] SLR 1011	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the value of a guilty plea is substantially attenuated when there is no other choice but to plead guilty.
Soong Hee Sin v PP	Unclear	Yes	[2001] 2 SLR 253	Singapore	Cited for the principle that restitution engendered purely by an expectation of a lighter sentence may sometimes be coloured by the same consideration as a tactically-made plea of guilt.
Regina v Howells	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 1 WLR 307	England	Cited for the relevant factors to be taken into account in meting out custodial sentences.
PP v Gurmit Singh	Unclear	Yes	[1999] 3 SLR 215	Singapore	Cited for the principle that there is no requirement in law for the prosecution to apply for deterrent sentencing before a court may consider it in the exercise of its discretion.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 379	Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 34	Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 506	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Sentencing
Manifestly Excessive
Deterrence
Mitigation
Restitution
Criminal Intimidation
Theft
Plea of Guilt
Antecedent
Group Offence

15.2 Keywords

theft
criminal intimidation
sentencing appeal
manifestly excessive
deterrence
mitigation
restitution

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Sentencing
Criminal Procedure

17. Areas of Law

Criminal Procedure
Sentencing
Criminal Law