Lim Li Ling v PP: Sentencing for Assisting in Public Lottery under Common Gaming Houses Act
Lim Li Ling appealed to the High Court of Singapore against her sentence of six months imprisonment and a fine of $200,000 for assisting in the carrying on of a public lottery, an offence under s 5(a) of the Common Gaming Houses Act. Tay Yong Kwang J allowed the appeal in part, reducing the fine to $80,000 but upholding the imprisonment term. The court clarified that while imprisonment is mandatory under s 5(a), the imposition of a fine is discretionary.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed in Part
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Lim Li Ling appealed her sentence for assisting in a public lottery. The High Court reduced her fine but upheld her imprisonment term.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lim Li Ling | Appellant | Individual | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | RS Bajwa |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Partial loss | Partial | Hay Hung Chun |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| RS Bajwa | Bajwa & Co |
| Hay Hung Chun | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
4. Facts
- Lim Li Ling, a 34-year-old female, pleaded guilty to assisting in the carrying on of a public lottery.
- She helped to carry on an illegal “10,000 characters” lottery (also known as “4D”).
- Her responsibilities included keying betting data into her laptop and transmitting it to Johor Baru.
- These activities were conducted from her sister’s home.
- Police found 84 pieces of faxed paper which recorded more than $55,000 worth of betting stakes.
- The magistrate sentenced her to six months imprisonment and a fine of $200,000.
5. Formal Citations
- Lim Li Ling v Public Prosecutor, MA 76/2006, [2006] SGHC 184
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Offence committed by Lim Li Ling | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Mandatory Imprisonment
- Outcome: The court held that the term of imprisonment under s 5(a) is mandatory, while the fine is optional.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Interpretation of 'shall be liable' vs 'shall be punished'
- Probation Eligibility
- Outcome: The court held that there was no jurisdiction under s 5(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act to order probation in respect of offenders such as the appellant.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Jurisdiction to grant probation
- Interpretation of 'mandatory minimum sentence' and 'specified minimum sentence'
8. Remedies Sought
- Probation
- Reduction of sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Assisting in carrying on of a public lottery
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Probation
11. Industries
- Gambling
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PP v Lim Li Ling | Singapore Magistrate Court | Yes | [2006] SGMC 8 | Singapore | Cited for the magistrate's decision on the inappropriateness of probation and the reasons for imposing the sentence. |
| See Choon Chye v PP | High Court | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 98 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that s 5(a) imposes both a mandatory minimum fine and a mandatory term of imprisonment, but the current judgment disagrees with this interpretation. |
| PP v Tang Chong Nai | Subordinate Courts | Yes | PP v Tang Chong Nai [2006] SGMC 6 | Singapore | Cited to show that the mandatory fine and imprisonment term under s 5(a) reflects Parliament’s intention that such offences should be treated seriously. |
| PP v Dua Thiam Hock | Magistrate Court | Yes | PP v Dua Thiam Hock (MAC 6185 of 2000/01) | Singapore | Cited for the magistrate's attempt to deviate from the approach of imposing both a term of imprisonment and a fine. |
| PP v Dua Thiam Hock | High Court | Yes | PP v Dua Thiam Hock (MA 250 of 2000/01) | Singapore | Cited for the High Court's decision that s 5(a) requires the imposition of a mandatory minimum fine of $20,000. |
| Philip Lau Chee Heng v PP | High Court | Yes | [1988] 3 MLJ 107 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that there is a clear distinction between the phrases ‘shall be liable to’ and ‘shall be punished with’. |
| PP v Lee Soon Lee Vincent | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 552 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that prima facie, the phrase ‘shall be liable’ contains no obligation or mandatory connotation. |
| PP v Man Bin Ismail | High Court | Yes | [1939] MLJ 207 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that the words “shall be liable to” give the Court an absolute discretion as to whether it shall award a sentence of imprisonment or deal with the accused under and in accordance with the probationary provisions. |
| Ng Chwee Puan v Regina | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1953] MLJ 86 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that the word “liable” contains no obligatory or mandatory connotation. |
| PP v Mahat bin Salim | High Court | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR 104 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the phrase “shall also be liable to”, as used in ss 356 and 380, did not bear a mandatory connotation. |
| PP v Nurashikin binte Ahmad Borhan | High Court | Yes | [2003] 1 SLR 52 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the phrase “shall be liable to” (as opposed to “shall be punished with”) contained no obligatory or mandatory connotation. |
| PP v Hew Yew | Federal Court | Yes | [1972] 1 MLJ 164 | Malaysia | Cited for the interpretation of the phrase “shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and not less than two years”. |
| Abu Seman v PP | Federal Court | Yes | [1982] 2 MLJ 338 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that the words “shall be liable to” gave the trial court “an absolute discretion … as to the form and the extent of the sentence to be imposed … be it imprisonment or fine or both”. |
| Juma’at bin Samad v PP | High Court | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR 338 | Singapore | Cited for the court adopting a more restrictive approach to the jurisdiction to grant probation. |
| Goh Lee Yin v PP | High Court | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR 530 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that an offender’s age should not be determinative of the suitability of a probation order. |
| PP v Muhammad Nuzaiham bin Kamal Luddin | High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 34 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in deciding whether or not probation is the appropriate sentence in each case, the court has to take into account all the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender. |
| PP v Mok Ping Wuen Maurice | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 138 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the archetype of the appropriate candidate for probation remains the young “amateur” offender. |
| Fay v PP | High Court | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 154 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the administration of justice should be tempered with a keen regard for the needs of the individual as far as the ambit of our laws allows. |
| Ang Nguan Tong v PP | High Court | Yes | Ang Nguan Tong v PP (MA 333/90/01-02) | Singapore | Cited as a case precedent where the maximum fine was reserved for illegal lotteries conducted on a far more extensive scale. |
| Auyok Kim Tye v PP | High Court | Yes | Auyok Kim Tye v PP (MA 79/2001/01) | Singapore | Cited as an illustration of the category of cases that warrant the imposition of a maximum fine. |
| Masran bin Mansor v PP | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 MLJ 307 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that if it is the intention to withhold from the court the power to resort to probation in respect of any offence or class of offences then that intention must be made manifest in the legislation. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Common Gaming Houses Act (Cap 49, 1985 Rev Ed) s 5(a) | Singapore |
| Probation of Offenders Act (Cap 252, 1985 Rev Ed) s 5(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Public lottery
- Common Gaming Houses Act
- Probation
- Mandatory imprisonment
- Specified minimum sentence
- Mandatory minimum sentence
- Sentencing
- 4D
- Illegal gambling
- Betting stakes
15.2 Keywords
- Common Gaming Houses Act
- Public lottery
- Sentencing
- Probation
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Gambling Law
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Statutory Offences
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing