Thong Sing Hock v PP: Revision of Proceedings & Sentencing for Immigration Officer's Offences

In Thong Sing Hock v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal against the sentence of Thong Sing Hock, a former Deputy Superintendent of the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA), who pleaded guilty to charges of unauthorized access to computer materials and abetting unlawful entry into Singapore. The High Court dismissed the appeal and enhanced the sentence, finding the original sentence manifestly inadequate and noting the appellant's lack of remorse. The court considered the appellant's abuse of his position as a senior immigration officer as an aggravating factor.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed; Sentence Enhanced

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

High Court revises sentence of Thong Sing Hock, an ICA officer, for abetting unlawful entry and computer misuse, enhancing it due to lack of remorse.

1.7 Decision Date

1 March 2009

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Respondent	Government Agency	Appeal Dismissed; Sentence Enhanced	Won	Christopher Ong Siu Jin of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Thong Sing Hock	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed; Sentence Enhanced	Lost	Choo Si Sen of Independent Practitioner

3. Judges

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

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Christopher Ong Siu Jin	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Choo Si Sen	Independent Practitioner

4. Facts

Thong Sing Hock was a Deputy Superintendent of the ICA.
Thong Sing Hock was in charge of a team of officers and held the post of Assistant Head (Repatriation).
Thong Sing Hock held the post of Senior Assistant Commander (Ground Operations) at the Tuas Checkpoint.
Thong Sing Hock assisted Song Qinghua, a PRC national, who unlawfully entered Singapore.
Song Qinghua used a misleading passport with a false name and date of birth.
Thong Sing Hock pleaded guilty to nine charges, including unauthorized access to computer materials and abetting Song's unlawful entry.
Thong Sing Hock later claimed he only learned of Song's true identity in 2006, contradicting the Agreed Statement of Facts.

5. Formal Citations

Thong Sing Hock v Public Prosecutor, MA 76/2008, [2009] SGHC 47
PP v Thong Sing Hock, , [2008] SGDC 97

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1997-01-01	Song Qinghua entered Singapore to work.
2001-07-01	Song Qinghua's work permit expired.
2002-04-22	Song Qinghua obtained a new PRC passport with a false name.
2003-01-01	Thong Sing Hock became acquainted with Song Qinghua in Beijing.
2004-02-01	Thong Sing Hock verified Song Qinghua's identity using ICA's computer system.
2004-11-28	Thong Sing Hock flew to Beijing to meet Song Qinghua.
2004-12-02	Thong Sing Hock and Song Qinghua arrived in Singapore.
2004-12-31	Thong Sing Hock and Song Qinghua left for Bangkok.
2005-01-03	Thong Sing Hock and Song Qinghua returned to Singapore.
2005-01-15	Thong Sing Hock arranged for Song Qinghua to stay at Lakepoint Condominium.
2005-02-23	Song Qinghua stayed at Lakepoint Condominium.
2005-12-07	Thong Sing Hock flew to Beijing to meet Song Qinghua.
2005-12-13	Thong Sing Hock arranged for Song Qinghua to stay at Yuan Ching Road.
2006-01-10	Song Qinghua left for Bangkok.
2006-01-12	Song Qinghua returned to Singapore.
2006-03-01	Thong Sing Hock used a computer workstation to retrieve Song Qinghua's FIN.
2006-03-01	Thong Sing Hock used a computer workstation to tally his entry and exit records.
2008-07-01	Appeal against sentence was first heard.
2008-08-12	Appeal dismissed and sentence enhanced.
2009-03-02	Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

Revision of Proceedings
- Outcome: The court determined the appropriate procedure for investigating allegations against counsel and considered whether serious injustice would result from not exercising revisionary powers.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Exercise of revisionary powers where there was plea of guilt
  - Whether court should go behind plea of guilt
  - Whether serious injustice was occasioned if counsel advised client to plead guilty despite knowing that client lacked requisite mens rea
  - Appropriate procedure when appellate court investigates allegations of pressure by counsel
- Related Cases:
  - [1996] 2 SLR 534
  - [2008] 3 SLR 383
  - [1967] 2 MLJ 130
  - [1996] 3 SLR 560
  - [1968] 1 MLJ 85
  - [1960] MLJ 265
  - [1994] 3 SLR 140
  - [2004] 4 SLR 475
  - [1996] 1 SLR 326
  - [2005] 1 SLR 622
  - [2001] 2 SLR 293
  - [1996] 1 SLR 745
Sentencing
- Outcome: The court held that the appellant's position as a senior immigration officer was an aggravating factor and that his lack of remorse justified an enhanced sentence.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Whether enhanced need for deterrence because appellant was senior immigration officer
  - Whether lack of remorse could operate as aggravating factor
- Related Cases:
  - [2007] 4 SLR 753
  - [2005] 4 SLR 249
  - [2003] 3 SLR 325
  - [2006] 4 SLR 653
  - [1995] 1 SLR 448
  - [2003] 1 SLR 410
  - [2000] 3 SLR 773
  - [2002] 4 SLR 762
  - [2001] 3 SLR 425
  - [2007] 2 SLR 814
  - [1999] 2 SLR 345
  - [2000] 3 SLR 308
  - [2001] 3 SLR 161
  - [1995] 3 SLR 252
  - [1996] 1 SLR 273
  - [2008] 1 SLR 824

8. Remedies Sought

Appeal against Sentence

9. Cause of Actions

Unauthorized Access to Computer Materials
Abetting Unlawful Entry into Singapore
Harbouring

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Law
Immigration Law
Cybercrime

11. Industries

Government

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Ulaganathan Thamilarasan v PP	High Court	Yes	[1996] 2 SLR 534	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a court is never compelled to convict an accused person simply because he pleads guilty.
Yunani bin Abdul Hamid v PP	High Court	Yes	[2008] 3 SLR 383	Singapore	Cited for the principle that there would be a serious injustice warranting criminal revision if the accused did not genuinely have the freedom to choose between pleading guilty and pleading not guilty.
Chen Chong v PP	Unknown	Yes	[1967] 2 MLJ 130	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that if the plea is guilty but there is equivocation, the accused is in effect trying to plead not guilty and the court has no discretion but to record a plea of not guilty and proceed with trial.
Ganesun s/o Kannan v PP	High Court	Yes	[1996] 3 SLR 560	Singapore	Cited for the principle that after a plea of guilt is accepted, the trial court can still re-examine the plea of guilt at any stage of the proceedings before it is functus officio.
Yeoh Eng Hock v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[1968] 1 MLJ 85	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that in a case where a plea of guilty has been made but before facts have been given, it is the usual practice to allow such plea to be withdrawn.
Public Prosecutor v Sam Kim Kai	Unknown	Yes	[1960] MLJ 265	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that a discretion is vested in a trial Court to allow an accused person, before sentence, to withdraw a plea of guilty and to substitute a plea of not guilty, but that discretion requires to be exercised judicially and for valid reasons.
Mok Swee Kok v PP	High Court	Yes	[1994] 3 SLR 140	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the revisionary powers of the High Court must be exercised sparingly and with great circumspection.
Hong Leong Finance Ltd v PP	High Court	Yes	[2004] 4 SLR 475	Singapore	Cited for the test of whether the failure to exercise revisionary powers will result in a serious injustice.
Ang Poh Chuan v PP	High Court	Yes	[1996] 1 SLR 326	Singapore	Cited for the principle that it must generally be shown that there is something so palpably wrong in the decision such that it strikes at the very essence of the exercise of judicial power.
Mohamed Hiraz Hassim v PP	High Court	Yes	[2005] 1 SLR 622	Singapore	Cited for the principle that it must generally be shown that there is something so palpably wrong in the decision such that it strikes at the very essence of the exercise of judicial power.
Ng Kim Han v PP	High Court	Yes	[2001] 2 SLR 293	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the fact that the appellant had pleaded guilty on his own accord is not a bar to the exercise of revisionary power.
Chen Hock Heng Textile Printing Pte Ltd v PP	High Court	Yes	[1996] 1 SLR 745	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the High Court may exercise its power of revision in any case which has come to its knowledge.
Lee Eng Hock v PP	High Court	Yes	[2002] 1 SLR 364	Singapore	Cited for the principle that it is undesirable to allow defence counsel to be made convenient scapegoats, on the back of whom ‘backdoor appeals’ are carried through.
Chua Qwee Teck v PP	High Court	Yes	[1991] SLR 857	Singapore	Cited for the principle of freedom of choice in pleading guilty and the applicable principles when counsel is alleged to have put pressure on the accused.
R v Turner	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1970] 2 QB 321	England and Wales	Cited for the guidelines for counsel when advising an accused on pleading guilty.
R v Peace	Unknown	Yes	[1976] Crim LR 119	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that it would be a serious matter if it were accepted that when counsel gave strong advice indicating the prospect of being found guilty and the alternative of pleading guilty it could be said that the plea was forced on the defendant.
Registrar of Vehicles v Komoco Motors Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 3 SLR 340	Singapore	Cited for the principle that in the absence of cross-examination, the only justification for not believing a sworn statement, especially one from a state official performing an administrative function, is if documentary or other oral evidence is adduced to disprove it.
PP v Loqmanul Hakim bin Buang	High Court	Yes	[2007] 4 SLR 753	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a deterrent sentence is warranted where an accused is an auxiliary police officer and the rationale underlying the imposition of such a sentence.
S Balakrishnan v PP	High Court	Yes	[2005] 4 SLR 249	Singapore	Cited for the principle that where public personnel are willing to commit a “complete betrayal of their offices” in falling below the level of conduct that should be expected of them, the courts should not hesitate to show disapproval and aversion for such egregious conduct by passing a sufficiently significant term of imprisonment.
Wong Tiew Yong v PP	High Court	Yes	[2003] 3 SLR 325	Singapore	Cited for the principle that although it is true that an offender’s lack of prior convictions can be a mitigating factor, the discretion remains with the court to refuse to consider someone as a first-time offender if he has been charged with multiple offences.
Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd v PP	High Court	Yes	[2006] 4 SLR 653	Singapore	Cited for the jurisprudential basis for a reduction in sentence for timeously-effected guilty pleas and the remorse-based approach.
Fu Foo Tong v PP	High Court	Yes	[1995] 1 SLR 448	Singapore	Cited for the guideline that a court has the discretion to reduce the sentence imposed by one-quarter to a third where a timeous plea of guilt is made.
Wan Kim Hock v PP	High Court	Yes	[2003] 1 SLR 410	Singapore	Cited for the principle that lack of remorse is an aggravating factor.
Siew Yit Beng v PP	High Court	Yes	[2000] 3 SLR 773	Singapore	Cited as an example where the trial judge explicitly considered “lack of remorse” as an aggravating factor.
Sarjit Singh s/o Mehar Singh v PP	High Court	Yes	[2002] 4 SLR 762	Singapore	Cited as an example where the trial judge explicitly considered “lack of remorse” as an aggravating factor.
Chua Tiong Tiong v PP	High Court	Yes	[2001] 3 SLR 425	Singapore	Cited for the four pillars of sentencing: retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence and prevention.
PP v Law Aik Meng	High Court	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR 814	Singapore	Cited for the principle of specific deterrence.
Heng Jong Cheng v PP	High Court	Yes	[1999] 2 SLR 345	Singapore	Cited for the principle that lack of remorse is a relevant factor in a determination on whether preventive detention should be ordered.
PP v Perumal s/o Suppiah	High Court	Yes	[2000] 3 SLR 308	Singapore	Cited for the principle that lack of remorse is a relevant factor in a determination on whether preventive detention should be ordered.
Tan Ngin Hai v PP	High Court	Yes	[2001] 3 SLR 161	Singapore	Cited for the principle that lack of remorse is a relevant factor in a determination on whether preventive detention should be ordered.
Kuek Ah Lek v PP	High Court	Yes	[1995] 3 SLR 252	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an accused is entitled to claim trial and the mere fact of claiming trial is not an aggravating circumstance.
PP v Nyu Tiong Lam	High Court	Yes	[1996] 1 SLR 273	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an offender may be viewed as being unremorseful where he takes his objections too far, and persists in creating a spectacle in court.
PP v Goh Lee Yin	High Court	Yes	[2008] 1 SLR 824	Singapore	Cited for the principle that rehabilitation seeks to alter the values of the offender so that he or she no longer desires to commit criminal acts.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (Cap 161 R 1, 2000 Rev Ed) r 71

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Computer Misuse Act (Cap 50A, 2007 Rev Ed) s 3(1)	Singapore
Immigration Act (Cap 133, 2008 Rev Ed) s 57(1)(aa)	Singapore
Immigration Act (Cap 133, 2008 Rev Ed) s 57(1)(d)(i)	Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 109	Singapore
Immigration Act s 57(1)(ia)(B)	Singapore
Immigration Act s 57(1)(iv)	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 180(g)	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 244	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 268	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Revisionary Powers
Plea of Guilt
Serious Injustice
Mens Rea
Deterrence
Lack of Remorse
Aggravating Factor
Mitigating Factor
Statement of Facts
ICA
Immigration Act
Computer Misuse Act

15.2 Keywords

Criminal
Immigration
Sentencing
Revision
Singapore
ICA
Lack of Remorse

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Sentencing	90
Criminal Procedure	80
Criminal Revision	75
Immigration	70
Criminal Law	60
Administrative Law	30

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Immigration Law
Sentencing
Criminal Procedure