PP v Saiful Rizam: Theft as Servant & Dishonest Receiving of Stolen Property
The Public Prosecutor appealed against the sentences meted out by the District Judge to Saiful Rizam bin Assim, Muhammad Erman bin Iman Tauhid, and Muhammad Yunus bin Aziz for theft as servant and dishonestly receiving stolen property. The High Court, presided over by Chao Hick Tin JA, dismissed the appeal, finding that while reformative training would have been appropriate initially, substituting it at the appeal stage would be unfair given the time the respondents had already served in prison.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed. The High Court upheld the original imprisonment sentences, disagreeing with the District Judge's initial sentencing considerations but finding that substituting reformative training at the appeal stage would be unfair due to the time already served.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court reviewed sentences for theft and receiving stolen property, committed by national servicemen. The court considered reformative training versus imprisonment.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Appellant | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Leong Wing Tuck of Attorney-General’s Chambers Nicholas Seng of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Saiful Rizam bin Assim | Respondent | Individual | Sentence Upheld | Neutral | |
| Muhammad Erman bin Iman Tauhid | Respondent | Individual | Sentence Upheld | Neutral | |
| Muhammad Yunus bin Aziz | Respondent | Individual | Sentence Upheld | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Leong Wing Tuck | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Nicholas Seng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Amarick Gill | Amarick Gill & Co |
| Tan Jia Wei | Amarick Gill & Co |
4. Facts
- The Respondents were national servicemen posted as staff assistants at the Case Property Store of Ang Mo Kio Police Division.
- R1 Saiful found the keys to the pedestal cabinet containing condemned handphones while the complainant was on leave.
- R1 Saiful and R2 Erman stole four handphones from the pedestal cabinet; R1 Saiful kept two, and R2 Erman sold the other two.
- R1 Saiful took beach shorts and a haversack meant for disposal, with R2 Erman's assistance.
- R2 Erman unlocked the Store and stole six handphones, later disposing of two, selling three, and giving one to R3 Yunus.
- R2 Erman and R3 Yunus agreed to steal from the Store and took four handphones, which R2 Erman sold.
- R2 Erman took four more handphones from the Store and sold them.
- R2 Erman and R3 Yunus took 12 handphones from the Store; R2 Erman threw away six and sold the other six with R3 Yunus.
- An investigation revealed the missing handphones, leading to the Respondents' admission of the offences.
- R2 Erman stole his mother's handphone while on bail.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Saiful Rizam bin Assim and other appeals, Magistrates' Appeals Nos 76, 78 and 79 of 2013, [2014] SGHC 12
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| R1 Saiful searched the complainant's drawer and found keys to the pedestal cabinet. | |
| R1 Saiful took beach shorts and a haversack from the Store. | |
| R2 Erman unlocked the Store and took six handphones. | |
| R2 Erman gave one stolen handphone to R3 Yunus. | |
| R2 Erman and R3 Yunus agreed to steal from the Store. | |
| R2 Erman and R3 Yunus took four handphones from the Store. | |
| R2 Erman took four handphones from the Store. | |
| R2 Erman and R3 Yunus took 12 handphones from the Store. | |
| Missing handphones discovered; police report lodged. | |
| R2 Erman stole his mother's handphone. | |
| R1 Saiful's imprisonment began. | |
| R3 Yunus's imprisonment began. | |
| First hearing of the prosecution's appeal. | |
| Second adjourned hearing of the appeals. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Appropriateness of Imprisonment Sentence
- Outcome: The High Court found that the District Judge was wrong in principle to have imposed a normal imprisonment term instead of considering reformative training, but ultimately upheld the original sentences due to the time already served.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2007] 4 SLR(R) 753
- [2008] 1 SLR(R) 449
- [2010] 4 SLR 731
- Appropriateness of Reformative Training
- Outcome: The High Court determined that reformative training would have been the more appropriate sentence initially, but declined to impose it at the appeal stage due to the respondents having already served a significant portion of their imprisonment terms.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- (2001) 4 HKCFAR 12
- Principle of Proportionality in Sentencing
- Outcome: The High Court considered the principle of proportionality in determining whether to substitute reformative training for the imprisonment sentences, ultimately concluding that doing so would be disproportionately harsh given the time already served.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1999] 1 SLR(R) 1022
- [1970] 1 MLJ 40
8. Remedies Sought
- Increased Sentences
- Reformative Training
9. Cause of Actions
- Theft as Servant
- Dishonestly Receiving Stolen Property
- Voluntarily Assisting in Making Away with Stolen Property
- Abetment by Conspiracy of Theft as Servant
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- Government (Law Enforcement)
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PP v Loqmanul Hakim bin Buang | High Court | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 753 | Singapore | Cited regarding sentencing considerations for law enforcement officers abusing their positions, but distinguished due to more aggravating factors in the cited case. |
| PP v Foo Shik Jin and others | High Court | Yes | [1996] SGHC 186 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court's discretion in sentencing young offenders to jail instead of reformative training when the offender does not agree to reformative training, but distinguished as the offender was deemed unsuitable for reformative training. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohammad Al-Ansari bin Basri | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 449 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that rehabilitation should be a predominant consideration when sentencing young offenders involved in serious offences. |
| Nur Azilah bte Ithnin v PP | High Court | Yes | [2010] 4 SLR 731 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that reformative training is not a 'soft option' and has a deterrent effect due to its structured regimentation and incarceration. |
| PP v Tan Fook Sum | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 1022 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that proportionality is a natural corollary to the sentencing goal of retribution. |
| Liow Siow Long v PP | Federal Court | Yes | [1970] 1 MLJ 40 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that the court should maintain proportion between the offence and the penalty. |
| R v James | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1960] 2 All ER 863 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle of strict proportionality in sentencing, where borstal training was deemed inappropriate if it exceeded the maximum term permitted for the offence. |
| R v Amos | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1961] 1 All ER 191 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that rehabilitation should be given stronger emphasis in sentencing, even if it means a longer term of detention compared to the maximum sentence for the crime committed. |
| Wong Chun Cheong v HKSAR | Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal | Yes | (2001) 4 HKCFAR 12 | Hong Kong | Cited for the principle that the circumstances of the offence should be considered when determining the appropriateness of a training centre order, and that the punishment should be proportionate to the offence. |
| PP v Abdul Hameed s/o Abdul Rahman and another | High Court | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 71 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that reformative training is a form of incarceration or deprivation of liberty, and substituting it for imprisonment would otherwise render the offender liable to double punishment of the same type. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 381 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 411(1) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 414(1) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 34 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 109 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 305(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 383(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Theft as servant
- Dishonestly receiving stolen property
- Reformative training
- National service
- Case Property Store
- Proportionality
- Sentencing
- Rehabilitation
- Deterrence
- Retribution
15.2 Keywords
- Theft
- Sentencing
- Reformative Training
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
- National Service
- Proportionality
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Theft | 90 |
| Receiving stolen property | 80 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Criminal conspiracy | 60 |
| Sentencing | 60 |
| Appeal | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Theft
- Criminal Procedure