Lim Bee Ngan Karen v PP: Parity Principle & Sentencing for Betting Act Offences

Karen Lim Bee Ngan appealed to the High Court of Singapore against the sentences imposed by the district judge for offences under the Betting Act and the Common Gaming Houses Act. The High Court, presided over by Chao Hick Tin JA, considered the application of the parity principle in sentencing offenders involved in a common criminal enterprise and the Prosecution's duty to disclose relevant sentencing information of co-offenders. The court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the imprisonment terms for some charges while upholding the fines.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed in part. The imprisonment terms for the Third to the Fifth Proceeded Charges were replaced with an imprisonment term of four months for each of these three Proceeded Charges. The imprisonment terms for the Third Proceeded Charge and the Fifth Proceeded Charge are to run consecutively, making a total imprisonment term of eight months for the Third to the Fifth Proceeded Charges. The fines imposed by the Sentencing Judge for all five Proceeded Charges as well as the default imprisonment terms in respect of those fines were upheld.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding sentencing for Betting Act and Common Gaming Houses Act offences. The court considered the parity principle and the Prosecution's duty to disclose co-offenders' sentences.

1.7 Decision Date

15 July 2015

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Lim Bee Ngan Karen	Appellant	Individual	Appeal allowed in part	Partial	Chan Tai-Hui Jason, Kok Li-en
Public Prosecutor	Respondent	Government Agency	Appeal partially unsuccessful	Partial	April Phang Suet Fern, Nicholas Lai Yi Shin

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chao Hick Tin	Justice of the Court of Appeal	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Chan Tai-Hui Jason	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Kok Li-en	Allen & Gledhill LLP
April Phang Suet Fern	Attorney-General's Chambers
Nicholas Lai Yi Shin	Attorney-General's Chambers

4. Facts

The Appellant was involved in illegal 4D betting, 4D bet collection, and football bookmaking activities.
The Appellant obtained an online football 'Master Agent' account from her brother, Lim Chin-U Keith, with a $1.1m credit limit.
The Appellant collected football bets from customers and placed them into the account, earning a commission of 20% to 90% of the value of bets collected.
The Appellant obtained an online 4D betting account from Keith with a $12,000 credit limit.
The Appellant obtained another online 4D account from “Ah Tee”, Ng Leong Chuan, with a $35,000 credit limit.
The Appellant was charged with offences under the Betting Act and the Common Gaming Houses Act.
Keith and Ah Tee were also involved in the Appellant's illegal activities.

5. Formal Citations

Lim Bee Ngan Karen v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate's Appeal No 118 of 2014, [2015] SGHC 183
Public Prosecutor v Karen Lim Bee Ngan, , [2014] SGMC 14

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2012-06-28	Police raided 92 Flora Road, #05-41, Edelweiss Condominium.
2013-01-01	Magistrate's Arrest Case No 9876 of 2013 filed.
2013-01-01	Magistrate's Arrest Case No 9878 of 2013 filed.
2013-01-01	Magistrate's Arrest Case No 9881 of 2013 filed.
2013-01-01	Magistrate's Arrest Case No 9883 of 2013 filed.
2013-01-01	Magistrate's Arrest Case No 9886 of 2013 filed.
2014-01-01	Magistrate's Appeal No 118 of 2014 filed.
2015-07-16	Judgment reserved.
2015-07-16	Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

Application of the parity principle in sentencing
- Outcome: The court held that the parity principle was applicable and the Sentencing Judge erred by failing to consider it when sentencing the Appellant.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Sentencing disparity between co-offenders
  - Consideration of co-offenders' sentences
- Related Cases:
  - [1998] 3 SLR(R) 95
  - (1984) 54 ALR 193
  - (1997) 189 CLR 295
  - (2010) 269 ALR 115
  - (1985) 19 A Crim R 210
  - (1991) 56 A Crim R 1
  - [2003] NSWCCA 234
  - [2005] NSWCCA 363
  - [2011] 283 ALR 1
  - [2004] SGHC 33
  - [1968–1970] SLR(R) 681
  - [2002] 2 SLR(R) 800
  - [2001] 1 SLR(R) 241
Prosecution's duty to disclose relevant material for sentencing
- Outcome: The court held that the Prosecution has a duty to assist the court in sentencing an accused by tendering all relevant material pertaining to the sentences meted out to earlier-sentenced co-offenders.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Disclosure of co-offenders' sentences
  - Assisting the court in sentencing
- Related Cases:
  - [2015] 1 SLR 309
  - [2004] 1 SLR(R) 48
  - (1983) 10 A Crim R 88
  - (1993) 66 A Crim R 204

8. Remedies Sought

Appeal against the sentence imposed by the district judge

9. Cause of Actions

Offences under the Betting Act (Cap 21, 2011 Rev Ed)
Offences under the Common Gaming Houses Act (Cap 49, 1985 Rev Ed)

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Litigation

11. Industries

Gambling

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Public Prosecutor v Karen Lim Bee Ngan	District Court	Yes	[2014] SGMC 14	Singapore	Cited as the location where the Sentencing Judge’s written grounds of decision may be found.
Lim Li Ling v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR(R) 165	Singapore	Cited for the approach of imposing both a fine and imprisonment for offences under s 5(a) of the CGHA.
Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2011] 3 SLR 1205	Singapore	Cited for the proposition that the Respondent was under a duty to disclose all relevant material pertaining to the sentences imposed on Keith and Ah Tee.
Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2011] 4 SLR 791	Singapore	Cited for the proposition that the Respondent was under a duty to disclose all relevant material pertaining to the sentences imposed on Keith and Ah Tee.
ADF v Public Prosecutor and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 1 SLR 874	Singapore	Cited for the principles governing an appellate court’s review of sentences imposed by lower courts.
Public Prosecutor v Ramlee and another action	High Court	Yes	[1998] 3 SLR(R) 95	Singapore	Cited for the definition of the parity principle.
Lowe v R	High Court of Australia	Yes	(1984) 54 ALR 193	Australia	Cited for the narrow view of the parity principle.
Postiglione v The Queen	High Court of Australia	Yes	(1997) 189 CLR 295	Australia	Cited for the narrow view of the parity principle.
Jimmy v R	New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal	Yes	(2010) 269 ALR 115	Australia	Cited for the broad view of the parity principle.
Sumner v R	Victorian Court of Criminal Appeal	Yes	(1985) 19 A Crim R 210	Australia	Cited as an example of the parity principle being applied in a case where the co-offenders did not all commit the same crime, but were nonetheless involved in the same criminal enterprise.
R v Gibson	New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal	Yes	(1991) 56 A Crim R 1	Australia	Cited for the court declining to apply the parity principle on the grounds that it would, in practical terms, be difficult to apply, and furthermore, applying it would “[stretch] the search for parity to unacceptable limits”.
R v Kerr	New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal	Yes	[2003] NSWCCA 234	Australia	Cited as a controversial decision that seems to advocate the application of the parity principle as a basis for reducing the sentence imposed on an offender if it is disproportionate to the sentence imposed on a co-offender who engaged in the same criminal enterprise but who was charged with a different offence.
R v Formosa	New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal	Yes	[2005] NSWCCA 363	Australia	Cited as a case that looked upon Kerr unfavourably.
Green v R	High Court of Australia	Yes	[2011] 283 ALR 1	Australia	Cited for Bell J’s criticism of Kerr in his minority judgment.
Phua Song Hua v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2004] SGHC 33	Singapore	Cited for Yong Pung How CJ declining to apply the parity principle in an appeal against (inter alia) sentence as the appellant, who claimed trial, had been charged with a more serious offence carrying a maximum imprisonment term of five years than his co-offenders, who had pleaded guilty to a less serious offence carrying a much shorter maximum imprisonment term of six months, such that “there [was] no longer any common basis for comparison”.
Liow Eng Giap v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[1968–1970] SLR(R) 681	Singapore	Cited as an early Singapore case where Choor Singh J revised the sentence of the appellant downwards in view of the light sentence imposed on his co-offender, who had been charged with the same offence as the appellant.
Public Prosecutor v Lee Wei Zheng Winston	High Court	Yes	[2002] 2 SLR(R) 800	Singapore	Cited for Yong CJ stating that the principle of parity is well-established in local sentencing law.
Lim Poh Tee v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2001] 1 SLR(R) 241	Singapore	Cited for Yong CJ pointing out that while consistency in sentencing is desirable, the varying degrees of culpability and the unique circumstances of each case play an equally, if not more important role.
Public Prosecutor v UI	High Court	Yes	[2008] 4 SLR(R) 500	Singapore	Cited for the objective of the parity principle is to ensure that there is a high level of consistency in sentencing.
Public Prosecutor v Development 26 Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2015] 1 SLR 309	Singapore	Cited for See Kee Oon JC stating that a prosecutor is duty-bound to assist the court to make a decision on sentence.
Dwahi v The Queen	New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal	Yes	[2011] NSWCCA 67	Australia	Cited for the practice of sentencing co-offenders by the same judge at the same time is grounded in the public interest of having transparency and consistency in sentencing co-offenders.
Rae v R	New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal	Yes	[2011] NSWCCA 211	Australia	Cited for the advantages where related offenders are sentenced by the same Judge at the same time, with remarks on sentence containing factual findings and conclusions concerning the relative criminality of the offenders and differing subjective features of each of them.
R v Stephen Broadbridge	English Court of Appeal	Yes	(1983) 5 Cr App R (S) 269	England	Cited for the recognition that it is often not possible for co-offenders to be sentenced at the same time by the same sentencing judge for a variety of reasons.
Public Prosecutor v Norhisham bin Mohamad Dahlan	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2004] 1 SLR(R) 48	Singapore	Cited as a case where the Prosecution satisfactorily discharged its duty of disclosure in relation to the sentencing of co-offenders.
Samuel James Dickes	Western Australia Court of Criminal Appeal	Yes	(1983) 10 A Crim R 88	Australia	Cited as an illustration of a case where the Prosecution failed to discharge its duty of disclosure in relation to the sentencing of co-offenders.
Brian John Brindley	New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal	Yes	(1993) 66 A Crim R 204	Australia	Cited as an illustration of a case where the Prosecution failed to discharge its duty of disclosure in relation to the sentencing of co-offenders.
Chen Weixiong Jerriek v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2003] 2 SLR(R) 334	Singapore	Cited for Yong CJ holding that it was the court’s prerogative to refuse to consider any person a first-time offender if he had been charged with multiple offences, even if he had no prior convictions.
Wong Kai Chuen Philip v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[1990] 2 SLR(R) 361	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a guilty plea is a factor which the court may take into account in mitigation as evidence of remorse, the weight that should be attributed to it would depend on the facts of the particular case concerned.
Lai Oei Mui Jenny v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[1993] 2 SLR(R) 406	Singapore	Cited for the principle that generally, the hardship that may be faced by an accused’s family because of the sentence to be imposed by the court should not be taken into account for sentencing purposes, unless the circumstances are “very exceptional or extreme”.
Auyok Kim Tye v Public Prosecutor	State Courts	Yes	[2001] SGMC 17	Singapore	Cited for the use of high-tech equipment which facilitated the carrying out of illegal betting, such as telephones, transceivers and CCTV surveillance systems, was considered to be an aggravating factor.
Public Prosecutor v Tan Suan Cheng	High Court	Yes	Magistrate’s Appeal No 246 of 1993	Singapore	Cited for the use of high-tech equipment which facilitated the carrying out of illegal betting, such as telephones, transceivers and CCTV surveillance systems, was considered to be an aggravating factor.
Tan Kwee Swe v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	Magistrate’s Appeal No 335 of 1999	Singapore	Cited as a case where the accused was involved as a runner in an illegal bookmaking operation and was given a sentence of six months’ imprisonment and a fine of $50,000.
Public Prosecutor v Chee Kok Yeong	State Courts	Yes	[2003] SGMC 8	Singapore	Cited as a case where the accused was a runner involved in a “well-organised” football betting operation and was sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment and fined $200,000.
Public Prosecutor v Oke Ah Bang	State Courts	Yes	[2005] SGMC 1	Singapore	Cited as a case where the accused was convicted of one charge under s 5(3)(a) of the BA and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and a fine of $50,000.
Public Prosecutor v Goh Liang Seah & Another	State Courts	Yes	[2006] SGMC 19	Singapore	Cited as a case where the two offenders had assisted an unknown Malaysian bookmaker as “pencillers” in recording illegal bets and were sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment and a fine of $20,000.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Betting Act (Cap 21, 2011 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 5(3)(a) of the Betting Act	Singapore
Common Gaming Houses Act (Cap 49, 1985 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 9(1) of the Common Gaming Houses Act	Singapore
s 5(a) of the Common Gaming Houses Act	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 307(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code	Singapore
s 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Parity principle
Sentencing
Co-offenders
Betting Act
Common Gaming Houses Act
Illegal betting
Football bookmaking
4D betting
Prosecution's duty
Disclosure of material

15.2 Keywords

Betting Act
Common Gaming Houses Act
Parity principle
Sentencing
Criminal law
Illegal betting
Bookmaking
Singapore

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Sentencing
Gaming Law

17. Areas of Law

Criminal Law
Sentencing
Betting Act
Common Gaming Houses Act