Seng Foo Building Construction v Public Prosecutor: Electricity Act Offences & Sentencing Principles
In Seng Foo Building Construction Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Seng Foo Building Construction Pte Ltd (“Seng Foo”) against the decision of the learned district judge. Seng Foo pleaded guilty to two charges under the Electricity Act (Cap 89A, 2002 Rev Ed). Seng Foo was prosecuted for damaging a high voltage electricity cable in the course of excavation works it carried out on 15 February 2013. The incident resulted in a brief power outage of about two minutes which affected 214 households. For the first charge, which was the failure to comply with the requirements imposed by SP PowerGrid Ltd (“SP PowerGrid”), Seng Foo was fined $15,000 (“the s 80(4)(a) offence”). Seng Foo was separately fined $45,000 for the second charge, which pertained to causing damage to the cable (“the s 85(2) offence”). Seng Foo appealed the total fine of $60,000 as being manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Seng Foo Building Construction fined for Electricity Act violations after damaging a high voltage cable. The appeal against the fine was dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Ruth Teng of Attorney-General’s Chambers Ho Lian-Yi of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Seng Foo Building Construction Pte Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ruth Teng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ho Lian-Yi | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Raymond Lye | Union Law LLP |
| Ashley Phua Xin Jie | Union Law LLP |
4. Facts
- Seng Foo was the main contractor for addition and alteration works to a multi-storey car park.
- Seng Foo engaged a subcontractor, which hired an excavator operator to conduct earthworks.
- Seng Foo notified SP PowerGrid of commencing earthworks near high voltage cables.
- SP PowerGrid issued a Letter of Requirements to Seng Foo.
- Seng Foo damaged a high voltage electricity cable during excavation works on 15 February 2013.
- The cable damage caused a power outage lasting about two minutes.
- The power outage affected 214 households in three HDB blocks.
5. Formal Citations
- Seng Foo Building Construction Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9099 of 2015, [2016] SGHC 243
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Seng Foo notified SP PowerGrid of commencing earthworks near high voltage cables. | |
| SP PowerGrid issued a Letter of Requirements to Seng Foo. | |
| Seng Foo damaged a high voltage electricity cable during excavation works. | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Sentencing Principles
- Outcome: The court clarified sentencing considerations for offences under s 80(4)(a) and s 85(2) of the Electricity Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2011] 4 SLR 671
- One-Transaction Rule
- Outcome: The court held that the one-transaction rule does not apply in the context of multiple fines.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2011] 4 SLR 671
- Totality Principle
- Outcome: The court held that the totality principle applies and the ultimate concern that underlies the application of the one-transaction rule, which is proportionality, can be dealt with within the framework of the totality principle.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against fine
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Electricity Act s 80(4)(a)
- Breach of Electricity Act s 85(2)
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Construction Law
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Seng Foo Building Construction Pte Ltd | District Court | Yes | [2016] SGMC 7 | Singapore | The current appeal is against the decision of the learned district judge in this case. |
| JS Metal Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 671 | Singapore | Cited for the application of the one-transaction rule in cases involving fines for damaging gas pipes. |
| Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 998 | Singapore | Cited for the general approach to sentencing where several offences are involved. |
| Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 653 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the sentencing judge should take note of the maximum penalty and determine where the offender's conduct falls within the spectrum of punishment. |
| Poh Boon Kiat v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 892 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the sentencing judge should take note of the maximum penalty and determine where the offender's conduct falls within the spectrum of punishment. |
| Tan Kay Beng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 10 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the need for deterring risk-taking behavior should be tempered by proportionality. |
| Vasentha d/o Joseph v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 122 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the need for deterring risk-taking behavior should be tempered by proportionality. |
| Public Prosecutor v Pay Ah Heng Contractor Pte Ltd | Magistrate Court | Yes | [2006] SGMC 4 | Singapore | Cited for the observation that Parliament has mandated that a person must exercise all due diligence in carrying out earthworks in the vicinity of high voltage cables. |
| Jupiter Shipping Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1993] 1 SLR(R) 402 | Singapore | Cited for the observation that the only objective for the most part that could reasonably guide sentencing for a strict liability offence is that the sentence be retributive. |
| Leu Xing-Long v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 1024 | Singapore | Cited for distinguishing between strict liability and absolute liability offences. |
| Principles of Criminal Law | N/A | Yes | [2009] | N/A | Cited for the observation that in truth, there is no “clear convention” on when criminal liability should be classified as “strict”. |
| Public Prosecutor v Hue An Li | High Court | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 661 | Singapore | Cited for the discussion of the control principle and the outcome materiality principle. |
| Guay Seng Tiong Nickson v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 1079 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the degree of care that contractors bring to bear can be increased by means of the penal law. |
| ADF v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 874 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where the contractor is also charged at the same time with an offence under s 80(4) and it is therefore already being punished for the lack of diligence and care under this separate offence, it will neither be necessary nor appropriate to factor this again into the sentencing matrix for the offence under s 85(2). |
| Public Prosecutor v Andrew Koh Weiwen | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHC 103 | Singapore | Cited for the observation that the SOF tendered by the Prosecution and admitted by an accused person, along with the charges, should set out the admitted facts for the court’s consideration at the sentencing stage. |
| K Saravanan Kuppusamy v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 88 | Singapore | Cited for the observation that where a material factor, which either aggravates or mitigates the offence, is to be put forward by either side, it is incumbent on the parties to either have it agreed, or to prove it at a Newton hearing or to seek to persuade the court to come to a conclusion on the basis of submissions. |
| Yap Ah Lai v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 180 | Singapore | Cited for the observation that little weight should be attributed to cases where the penalties had been imposed without written grounds. |
| Public Prosecutor v Hexagroup Pte Ltd | District Court | Yes | [2013] SGDC 154 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that had there been power outage, that would have been a relevant factor in determining sentence and more so if the outage caused damage to industrial enterprises. |
| Public Prosecutor v Fonda Global Engineering Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 778 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the evidence of the consequences should be provided in sufficient detail to give the courts a reasonable idea of their severity. |
| Public Prosecutor v ED. Zublin AG | N/A | Yes | (MSC 90086-2014 and anor) (6 February 2015) | Singapore | Cited for comparison of the harm caused by the cable damage. |
| Tan Kheng Chun Ray v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 437 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the determination of whether the one-transaction rule is engaged is ultimately one of common sense. |
| Chia Kah Boon v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR(R) 1163 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the totality principle could be applied in the context of a cumulative sentence comprising fines for several distinct offences. |
| Chandara Sagaran s/o Rengayah v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR(R) 79 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the totality principle applied to a cumulative sentence made up of fines. |
| Royer v Western Australia | Court of Appeal of Western Australia | Yes | [2009] WASCA 139 | Australia | Cited for the discussion of the basic rationale for the one-transaction rule. |
| Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union | N/A | Yes | [2015] 105 ACSR 403 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the totality principle applies to the fixing of fines. |
| Environment Protection Authority v Barnes | New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [2006] NSWCCA 246 | Australia | Cited for the principle that if the sentencing judge believed that the totality principle “required an adjustment to the fines which may otherwise be appropriate, the amount of each fine had to be altered”. |
| Camilleri’s Stock Feeds Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority | N/A | Yes | (1993) 32 NSWLR683 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the penalties for the second and third offences were adjusted to reflect the appellant’s total criminality. |
| R v Great White Holdings Ltd | Alberta Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] ABCA 188 | Canada | Cited for the principle that while fines cannot be made concurrent, the totality principle applies to and modifies fines for multiple offences. |
| R v John Pointon & Sons Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 Cr App R (S) 82 | United Kingdom | Cited for the suggestion that it would not be wrong for a judge to pass a fine for every count; neither would it be wrong to impose one fine for the most serious offence while imposing no separate penalty for other counts. |
| HKSAR v Chan Kim Chung Nelson | N/A | Yes | [2013] 2 HKC 448 | Hong Kong | Cited for the principle that the practice of ordering no separate penalty also appears to be possible in Hong Kong. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Electricity Act (Cap 89A, 2002 Rev Ed) s 80(4)(a) | Singapore |
| Electricity Act (Cap 89A, 2002 Rev Ed) s 85(2) | Singapore |
| Electricity Act s 85(3) | Singapore |
| Electricity Act s 80(1) | Singapore |
| Electricity Act s 80(2) | Singapore |
| Electricity Act s 80(4) | Singapore |
| Electricity Act s 80(4)(b) | Singapore |
| Electricity Act s 80(4)(c) | Singapore |
| Electricity Act s 80(7) | Singapore |
| Electricity Act s 80(8) | Singapore |
| Electricity Act s 80(9) | Singapore |
| Electricity Act s 85(1) | Singapore |
| Electricity Act s 85(5) | Singapore |
| Electricity Act s 85(6) | Singapore |
| Public Utilities (Amendment) Act 1999 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 307 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 306(2) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 344 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 346 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 306(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Electricity Act
- High voltage cable
- Excavation works
- Power outage
- Letter of Requirements
- SP PowerGrid
- One-transaction rule
- Totality principle
- Sentencing principles
- Cable detection worker
- Earthworks
- Strict liability offence
15.2 Keywords
- Electricity Act
- High voltage cable
- Excavation
- Sentencing
- One-transaction rule
- Totality principle
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Sentencing | 95 |
| Electricity Act | 85 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Construction Law | 20 |
| Administrative Law | 10 |
| Company Law | 5 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Electricity Law
- Construction Law
- Sentencing