Seow Wei Sin v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Sentence for Enlistment Act Offence

Seow Wei Sin appealed against an 18-month imprisonment sentence imposed by the District Court for an offence under s 32(1) of the Enlistment Act for remaining outside Singapore without a valid exit permit. The Public Prosecutor also appealed against the sentence. Chao Hick Tin JA, in the High Court of Singapore on 25 October 2010, allowed Seow Wei Sin's appeal and dismissed the Prosecution's appeal, substituting the custodial sentence with a fine of $5,000, finding the imprisonment term manifestly excessive given the particular circumstances of the case.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Accused's Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal against an 18-month imprisonment term for remaining outside Singapore without a valid exit permit. The High Court substituted the sentence with a $5,000 fine.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondent, AppellantGovernment AgencyAppeal DismissedLost
Chay Yuen Fatt of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Davyd Chong of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Seow Wei SinAppellant, RespondentIndividualAppeal AllowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of the Court of AppealYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Chay Yuen FattAttorney-General’s Chambers
Davyd ChongAttorney-General’s Chambers
Tan Jee MingStraits Law Practice LLC
Choo Si SenStraits Law Practice LLC

4. Facts

  1. Accused was born in Singapore on 26 August 1961.
  2. Accused's family migrated to Malaysia in January 1963 when he was one year old.
  3. Accused obtained Malaysian Permanent Resident status on 22 February 1978.
  4. Accused's father informed CMPB of the family's migration on 25 March 1978.
  5. Accused remained outside Singapore from 26 May 1978 to 25 August 2001 without a valid exit permit.
  6. Accused's father, who communicated with CMPB, passed away in 1993.
  7. Accused attempted to apply for a Singapore passport in 2008.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Seow Wei Sin v Public Prosecutor and another appeal, , [2010] SGHC 312

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Accused was born in Singapore.
Accused's family migrated to Malaysia.
Accused visited relatives in Singapore.
Accused registered for National Registration Identity Card.
Accused obtained Malaysian Permanent Resident status.
Accused's father informed CMPB of family's migration.
Accused became subject to the Enlistment Act.
Accused registered as an NS Overseas Registrant.
CMPB requested a bond for an exit permit.
Accused's father replied he was unable to furnish a bond.
Accused's father was informed Accused should return to Singapore.
Accused's father stated Accused would return after studies.
CMPB conducted house visit.
CMPB conducted house visit.
Accused got married.
CMPB conducted house visit.
Accused had his first child.
Accused's father passed away.
ICA sent a letter to Accused's Malaysian address.
Accused set up a pet shop.
Accused turned 40 years old.
Accused attempted to apply for a Singapore passport.
Accused returned to Singapore.
Accused reported to CMPB.
High Court delivered judgment.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Manifest Excessiveness of Sentence
    • Outcome: The High Court found the 18-month imprisonment term manifestly excessive and substituted it with a fine of $5,000.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Reliance on Ministerial Statement
      • Consideration of Mitigating Factors
    • Related Cases:
      • [1991] 1 SLR(R) 501
      • [2010] SGHC 239
      • [2007] 4 SLR(R) 183
      • [2008] 4 SLR(R) 500
      • [1995] 1 SLR(R) 185
      • [2007] 4 SLR(R) 753
  2. Applicability of Ministerial Statement
    • Outcome: The High Court held that unless the thinking in the Ministerial Statement is incorporated in the Act itself it should not ipso facto be followed by the court as a matter of course.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2007] 4 SLR(R) 183

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against sentence

9. Cause of Actions

  • Offence under s 32(1) of the Enlistment Act

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Appeals

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Public Prosecutor v Seow Wei SinDistrict CourtYes[2010] SGDC 191SingaporeRefers to the District Judge's decision which imposed a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment.
Chota bin Abdul Razak v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[1991] 1 SLR(R) 501SingaporeCited for the principle that an accused should be punished in the circumstances and in accordance with the law which existed at the time of his offence, and not take into account events which occurred subsequently.
Fricker Oliver v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and another matterHigh CourtYes[2010] SGHC 239SingaporeCited for the principle that the courts have the sole constitutional remit to decide on the guilt and sentencing of all individuals who violate the laws of Singapore.
Public Prosecutor v Low Kok HengHigh CourtYes[2007] 4 SLR(R) 183SingaporeCited for the principle that the court is permitted, but not obliged, to refer to material extrinsic to the text of a statute, such as Parliamentary debates or statements made by a Minister in Parliament, if such material is capable of assisting in the ascertainment of the meaning of the text.
Public Prosecutor v Melvyn Tan Ban EngDistrict CourtYesPublic Prosecutor v Melvyn Tan Ban Eng District Arrest Case No 14358 of 2005SingaporeCase mentioned as the reason for the Ministerial Statement on NS defaulters.
Re Bolton; Ex parte BeaneHigh Court of AustraliaYes(1987) 162 CLR 514AustraliaCited for the principle that the words of a Minister must not be substituted for the text of the law.
Public Prosecutor v UIHigh CourtYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 500SingaporeCited for the conventional approach to sentencing in Singapore.
Public Prosecutor v Ang Tiam Huat and Ho Fui ShiongHigh CourtYesPublic Prosecutor v Ang Tiam Huat and Ho Fui Shiong Magistrate's Appeal No 345 of 1992SingaporeCited as a sentencing precedent where fines were imposed for remaining outside Singapore without a valid exit permit for 15 years.
Public Prosecutor v Shaik Zaman s/o Rashid and Abu Zama s/o M RashidHigh CourtYesPublic Prosecutor v Shaik Zaman s/o Rashid and Abu Zama s/o M Rashid Magistrate's Appeal No 530 of 1992SingaporeCited as a sentencing precedent where fines were imposed for remaining outside Singapore without a valid exit permit for 12 years.
Public Prosecutor v Shanthakumar s/o BannirchelvamHigh CourtYesPublic Prosecutor v Shanthakumar s/o Bannirchelvam Magistrate's Appeal No 52 of 2008SingaporeCited as a sentencing precedent where a fine was imposed for remaining outside Singapore without a valid exit permit for one year and four months.
Public Prosecutor v Chia Shu SianDistrict CourtYesPublic Prosecutor v Chia Shu Sian District Arrest Case No 58753 of 2004SingaporeCited by the Prosecution as a case where a custodial sentence was imposed for remaining in Malaysia without a valid exit permit, but distinguished by the court.
Public Prosecutor v Ng Kwok FaiDistrict CourtYes[2004] SGDC 232SingaporeCited by the Prosecution as a case where a custodial sentence was imposed for failing to report as required, but distinguished by the court.
Lim Sin Han Andy v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2000] 1 SLR(R) 643SingaporeCited by the Prosecution as a case where a custodial sentence was imposed for being absent without leave, but distinguished by the court.
Public Prosecutor v Amit Rahul ShahDistrict CourtYesPublic Prosecutor v Amit Rahul Shah District Arrest Case No 26717 of 2008SingaporeCited by the Prosecution as a case where a custodial sentence was imposed for remaining outside Singapore without a valid exit permit, but distinguished by the court.
Public Prosecutor v Jaya Kumar s/o KrishnasamyDistrict CourtYesPublic Prosecutor v Jaya Kumar s/o Krishnasamy District Arrest Case No 29986 of 2009SingaporeCited by the Prosecution as a case where a custodial sentence was imposed for failing to report for NS registration, but distinguished by the court.
Public Prosecutor v Xu JianlongDistrict CourtYesPublic Prosecutor v Xu Jianlong District Arrest Case No 46958 of 2008SingaporeCited by the Prosecution as a case where a custodial sentence was imposed for failing to report for enlistment, but distinguished by the court.
Sim Gek Yong v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[1995] 1 SLR(R) 185SingaporeCited for the principle that the seriousness of an offence should not be determined purely on the length of period of default.
Public Prosecutor v Loqmanul Hakim bin BuangHigh CourtYes[2007] 4 SLR(R) 753SingaporeCited for the principle that specific deterrence would not apply in this case as the Accused is no longer of an age where he can commit a similar offence in future.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Enlistment Act (Cap 93, 2001 Rev Ed) s 32(1)Singapore
Enlistment Act (Cap 93, 2001 Rev Ed) s 33Singapore
Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 9A(1)Singapore
Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 9A(2)Singapore
Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 9A(3)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • National Service
  • NS defaulter
  • Exit permit
  • Ministerial Statement
  • Sentencing precedents
  • Mitigating factors
  • Aggravating factors
  • Manifestly excessive
  • CMPB
  • Enlistment Act

15.2 Keywords

  • National Service defaulter
  • Enlistment Act
  • Appeal
  • Sentence
  • Fine
  • Imprisonment

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
National Service Offences95
Criminal Law40
Civil Procedure10

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • National Service
  • Sentencing