PP v Goh Lee Yin: Kleptomania, Theft, and Sentencing of Mentally Disordered Offenders

In Public Prosecutor v Goh Lee Yin, the High Court of Singapore addressed the sentencing of Goh Lee Yin, a clinically diagnosed kleptomaniac, for two charges of theft. The Prosecution appealed against the District Court's sentence of one day's imprisonment and a fine of $8,000, arguing it was manifestly inadequate. Rajah JA dismissed the appeal and imposed a fresh term of probation of 18 months, emphasizing rehabilitation over deterrence for mentally disordered offenders, provided they demonstrate commitment to their treatment plan. The court acknowledged the need for a balanced approach, considering both the offender's condition and public interest.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed; a fresh term of probation of 18 months imposed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

High Court judgment on sentencing a kleptomaniac for theft, balancing rehabilitation and public protection. Appeal dismissed, probation extended.

1.7 Decision Date

28 November 2007

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Appellant	Government Agency	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Lau Wing Yum of Attorney-General’s Chambers Shawn Ho of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Goh Lee Yin	Respondent	Individual	Fresh Probation Order Imposed	Neutral	Spencer Gwee of Spencer Gwee & Co

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
V K Rajah	Justice of the Court of Appeal	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Lau Wing Yum	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Shawn Ho	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Spencer Gwee	Spencer Gwee & Co

4. Facts

Respondent diagnosed with kleptomania.
Respondent committed theft at LV Boutique and Coach Boutique on 20 November 2006.
Respondent was on probation for previous theft offenses.
Respondent had been undergoing psychiatric and psychological treatment.
Respondent's employer terminated her service shortly before the offenses.
Respondent admitted to feeling distressed and reverting to stealing.
Psychiatric reports indicated respondent made progress in treatment but relapsed.

5. Formal Citations

Public Prosecutor v Goh Lee Yin and Another Appeal, MA 88/2007, 112/2005, [2007] SGHC 205
Goh Lee Yin v PP, , [2006] 1 SLR 530
PP v Goh Lee Yin, , [2007] SGDC 133
PP v Goh Lee Yin, , [2005] SGDC 179
PP v Zhang Jing, , [2006] SGDC 82
PP v Zhang Jing, , [2007] SGDC 224

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2005-04-27	Respondent apprehended for similar offences.
2005-05-12	Respondent apprehended for similar offences.
2005-05-16	Respondent stole items from Cold Storage and Tangs.
2005-05-30	Dr. Jerome Goh Hern Yee prepared a report on the respondent.
2005-08-19	Dr. Tan Chue Tin prepared a report for the District Court.
2005-10-15	Respondent arrested for theft at Isetan Departmental Store.
2005-11-02	Dr. Tan wrote a letter to Mrs. Foo-Lim Jim Jim.
2006-11-20	Respondent committed theft at LV Boutique and Coach Boutique.
2006-12-26	Dr. Tan’s report emphasized that the respondent had been free of her kleptomaniac impulses for a year.
2007-02-22	Dr. Phang issued a report stating that the respondent suffered from kleptomania.
2007-03-19	Psychological progress report prepared by Mr. Lim Han Siang and Ms. Jennifer Teoh Boon Pei.
2007-04-03	Dr. Phang reiterated that the respondent’s recent second series of offences did not diminish the possibility of recovery.
2007-04-08	Dr. Tan expressed the view that his treatment plan for the respondent could not be implemented in a prison environment.
2007-07-24	Parties first heard.
2007-07-26	Dr. Phang submitted a report at the request of the Prosecution.
2007-08-27	Senior Minister of State for Law, Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee, provided a preview into the possible future options available to the courts.
2007-09-12	Dr. Tan’s report reflected similar conclusions as Dr. Phang’s report.
2007-10-18	Dr. Stephen Phang and Dr. Tan Chue Tin testified.
2007-11-29	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Sentencing Considerations for Mentally Disordered Offenders
- Outcome: The court held that rehabilitation should be the primary focus for kleptomaniacs, with deterrence playing a secondary role unless treatment is disregarded.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Balancing rehabilitation and public protection
  - Relevance of psychiatric disorders in sentencing
  - Specific deterrence vs. general deterrence for kleptomaniacs
- Related Cases:
  - [2007] 2 SLR 814
  - Regina v James Henry Sargeant (1974) 60 Cr App R 74
  - [1999] 2 SLR 523
  - [2001] 3 SLR 425
  - [2006] 4 SLR 10
  - [1995] 1 SLR 735
  - [1995] 1 SLR 514
  - [1998] 2 SLR 522
  - [2003] 3 SLR 178
  - R v Wiskich [2000] SASC 64
  - [2007] SGHC 34
  - [2007] 2 SLR 957
  - [2006] 3 SLR 247
  - [2003] 3 SLR 435
  - [2005] 3 SLR 1
  - [2006] SGDC 82
  - [2007] SGDC 224
  - [2005] NSWCCA 265
  - (1978) 2 YR 93
  - (1994) WL 1706750 (Ont Prov Div)
  - [2001] 4 WWR 725
  - [2003] HKCU 1195
  - [2006] 1 SLR 530
  - [2007] SGDC 133
  - [2005] SGDC 179
Appropriate Sentence for Kleptomania
- Outcome: The court determined that a fresh probation order was appropriate, emphasizing rehabilitation and considering the respondent's progress in treatment.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Probation vs. incarceration
  - Consideration of previous offenses
  - Impact of mental disorder on sentencing
- Related Cases:
  - [2006] 1 SLR 530
  - [2007] SGDC 133
  - [2005] SGDC 179
  - [1995] 1 SLR 514
  - [2006] SGDC 82
  - [2007] SGDC 224
  - [2005] NSWCCA 265
  - (1978) 2 YR 93
  - (1994) WL 1706750 (Ont Prov Div)
  - [2001] 4 WWR 725
  - [2003] HKCU 1195
Breach of Probation Order
- Outcome: The court imposed a further probation order of 18 months for the breach, prioritizing rehabilitation over imprisonment.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Sentencing options for breach
  - Relevance of mental disorder to breach proceedings

8. Remedies Sought

Incarceration
Fines
Enhanced Sentence

9. Cause of Actions

Theft

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Law
Sentencing
Mental Health Law

11. Industries

Retail

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
PP v Law Aik Meng	High Court	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR 814	Singapore	Cited for the general principles of sentencing and the application of deterrence.
Regina v James Henry Sargeant	N/A	Yes	Regina v James Henry Sargeant (1974) 60 Cr App R 74	N/A	Cited for the four classical principles of sentencing: retribution, deterrence, prevention, and rehabilitation.
PP v Tan Fook Sum	N/A	Yes	[1999] 2 SLR 523	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the most relevant sentencing principles substantially impact the sentence imposed.
Chua Tiong Tiong v PP	N/A	Yes	[2001] 3 SLR 425	Singapore	Cited for the sentencing court's strive to achieve a proper balance of the four principles of sentencing.
Tan Kay Beng v PP	High Court	Yes	[2006] 4 SLR 10	Singapore	Cited for the views on the application of deterrence as a sentencing principle.
Tok Kok How v PP	High Court	Yes	[1995] 1 SLR 735	Singapore	Discusses the concept of 'undeterribility' and its limited weight in certain cases.
Siauw Yin Hee v PP	High Court	Yes	[1995] 1 SLR 514	Singapore	Discusses a case where the offender was sentenced to imprisonment due to failure to seek treatment for depression-induced kleptomania.
Meeran bin Mydin v PP	N/A	Yes	[1998] 2 SLR 522	Singapore	Cited for the principle that general deterrence aims at educating and deterring other like-minded members of the general public.
Ng So Kuen Connie v PP	High Court	Yes	[2003] 3 SLR 178	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the element of general deterrence could be given considerably less weight if the offender was suffering from a mental disorder.
R v Wiskich	Supreme Court of South Australia	Yes	R v Wiskich [2000] SASC 64	Australia	Cited for the principle that the element of general deterrence could be given considerably less weight if the offender was suffering from a mental disorder.
PP v Lim Ah Liang	High Court	Yes	[2007] SGHC 34	Singapore	Cited for the principle that incapacitation aims to deal with severely mentally-ill offenders.
PP v Lim Ah Seng	High Court	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR 957	Singapore	Cited as a more recent authority pointing to the same proposition.
PP v Aguilar Guen Garlejo	High Court	Yes	[2006] 3 SLR 247	Singapore	Cited as a more recent authority pointing to the same proposition.
Viswanathan Ramachandran v PP	N/A	Yes	[2003] 3 SLR 435	Singapore	Cited for the principle that sentencing precedents are only guidelines as each case turns on its own facts.
Dinesh Singh Bhatia s/o Amarjeet Singh v PP	N/A	Yes	[2005] 3 SLR 1	Singapore	Cited for the principle that sentencing precedents are not cast in stone, nor do they represent an abdication of the judicial prerogative to tailor criminal sanctions to the individual offender.
PP v Zhang Jing	District Court	Yes	[2006] SGDC 82	Singapore	Discusses a case where the accused was sentenced to imprisonment due to ignoring the treatment plan.
PP v Zhang Jing	District Court	Yes	[2007] SGDC 224	Singapore	Discusses a case where the accused was sentenced to imprisonment of nine months.
R v Kevin John O’Connell	New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal	Yes	[2005] NSWCCA 265	Australia	Discusses a case where the court attributed great emphasis to the accused’s lack of culpability owing to his kleptomania.
R v Kemp	N/A	Yes	(1978) 2 YR 93	Canada	Discusses a case where the court granted the accused a conditional discharge and placed him on two years’ probation.
R v Seguin	Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division)	Yes	(1994) WL 1706750 (Ont Prov Div)	Canada	Discusses a case where a kleptomaniac was sentenced to probation with a suspended sentence.
R v Elaschuk	Alberta Provincial Court	Yes	[2001] 4 WWR 725	Canada	Discusses a case where the accused was not criminally responsible because she was suffering from a mental disorder.
HKSAR v Ngai King Ying	High Court	Yes	[2003] HKCU 1195	Hong Kong	Discusses a case where the court allowed the appeal and varied the term of imprisonment to one of a suspended sentence.
Goh Lee Yin v PP	High Court	Yes	[2006] 1 SLR 530	Singapore	The current judgment relies heavily on this case. It is central to the current judgment's reasoning and outcome.
PP v Goh Lee Yin	District Court	Yes	[2007] SGDC 133	Singapore	The current judgment is an appeal of this case. It is central to the current judgment's reasoning and outcome.
PP v Goh Lee Yin	District Court	Yes	[2005] SGDC 179	Singapore	The current judgment refers to this case to provide background information.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 380	Singapore
Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Cap 184, 1997 Rev Ed) s 35(1)	Singapore
Probation of Offenders Act (Cap 252, 1985 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Probation of Offenders Act (Cap 252, 1985 Rev Ed) s 9(5)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Kleptomania
Probation
Rehabilitation
Deterrence
Sentencing
Mental disorder
Specific deterrence
General deterrence
Incapacitation
Treatment plan
Relapse
Shoplifting
Psychiatric disorder

15.2 Keywords

Kleptomania
Theft
Sentencing
Mental Disorder
Rehabilitation
Probation

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Kleptomania	95
Sentencing considerations applicable to kleptomaniacs	95
Sentencing	90
Criminal Law	90
Criminal Procedure	85
Offences Relating to Property	80
Theft	75
Mentally disordered offenders	70
Torts	20
Company Law	5
Criminal Revision	5
Personal Injury	5
Bankruptcy	5
Wills and Probate	5
Administrative Law	5
Trust Law	5
Contract Law	5

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Sentencing
Mental Health