PP v Raveen Balakrishnan: Sentencing for Unrelated Offences & Totality Principle
The Public Prosecutor appealed against the sentence imposed on Raveen Balakrishnan by the District Judge. Balakrishnan pleaded guilty to voluntarily causing hurt with a dangerous weapon and rioting. The Chief Justice addressed whether sentences for unrelated offences should run concurrently or consecutively, the totality principle, and double counting of sentencing factors. The appeal was allowed in part, with the sentences ordered to run consecutively, resulting in an aggregate sentence of four and a half years' imprisonment and nine strokes of the cane.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed in Part
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding sentencing for unrelated offences. The court addressed concurrent vs. consecutive sentences, the totality principle, and double counting.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Appellant | Government Agency | Appeal Allowed in Part | Partial | Sarah Shi of Attorney-General’s Chambers Tan Wen Hsien of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Raveen Balakrishnan | Respondent | Individual | Sentenced to imprisonment and caning | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Sarah Shi | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Wen Hsien | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Chao Yuan | Esvaran & Tan |
4. Facts
- Accused pleaded guilty to voluntarily causing hurt with a knife and rioting.
- The first offence involved cutting the victim's face with a knife, causing a 11cm laceration.
- The second offence involved the Accused participating in a group assault, punching and kicking the victim.
- The second offence was committed while the Accused was on bail for the first offence.
- The Accused had prior convictions, including rioting and voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
- The District Judge ordered the sentences to run concurrently, focusing on rehabilitation.
- The Prosecution appealed, arguing the sentences should run consecutively.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Raveen Balakrishnan, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9330 of 2017/01, [2018] SGHC 148
- Public Prosecutor v Raveen Balakrishnan, , [2017] SGDC 292
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Voluntarily causing hurt offence occurred | |
| Rioting offence occurred | |
| Initial remand date | |
| Accused pleaded guilty to two charges | |
| Sentencing submissions heard by the District Judge | |
| Accused sentenced by District Judge | |
| Hearing of appeal | |
| Appeal allowed in part |
7. Legal Issues
- Sentencing for Unrelated Offences
- Outcome: The court held that as a general rule, sentences for unrelated offences should run consecutively.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 2 SLR 998
- Totality Principle
- Outcome: The court applied the totality principle to ensure the aggregate sentence was proportionate to the overall criminality.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 2 SLR 998
- Rule Against Double Counting
- Outcome: The court addressed the rule against double counting of sentencing factors.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2017] 2 SLR 68
8. Remedies Sought
- Increased Sentence
- Consecutive Sentences
9. Cause of Actions
- Voluntarily Causing Hurt by Dangerous Weapons or Means
- Rioting
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 998 | Singapore | Laid down the framework for determining the aggregate sentence for offenders convicted of multiple charges. |
| Public Prosecutor v Law Aik Meng | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 814 | Singapore | Cited for the one-transaction rule, where sentences should run concurrently if offences form part of a single transaction. |
| Seng Foo Building Construction Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 3 SLR 201 | Singapore | Identified the effect of undermining sentencing considerations as a justification for departing from the one-transaction rule. |
| Public Prosecutor v AUB | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 166 | Singapore | Sentences for unrelated offences should run consecutively to reflect the added criminality of further unrelated offending. |
| Public Prosecutor v Goh Lee Yin | District Court | Yes | [2005] SGDC 179 | Singapore | Demonstrates that individual sentences have been and can be run concurrently, even if the offences happen to be unrelated. |
| Chua Whye Woon v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHC 189 | Singapore | Demonstrates that individual sentences have been and can be run concurrently, even if the offences happen to be unrelated. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chua Whye Woon | District Court | Yes | [2016] SGDC 83 | Singapore | The district judge's reasoning is consistent with the proposition that sentences for unrelated offences should generally be ordered to run consecutively. |
| R v MAK, R v MSK | New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [2006] NSWCCA 381 | Australia | Clarifies that any mitigation of the aggregate sentence by virtue of the totality principle is justified not as a bulk discount on account of multiple offending. |
| Chang Kar Meng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 68 | Singapore | It is well established that the court cannot treat a constituent ingredient of an offence as an aggravating factor in sentencing. |
| Guay Seng Tiong Nickson v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 1079 | Singapore | One clear situation in which double counting occurs is when a factor that is an essential element of the charge is taken also as an aggravating factor enhancing the sentence within the range of applicable sentences for that charge. |
| Loo Pei Xiang Alan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 500 | Singapore | Another clear instance of double counting is where a factor is expressly or implicitly taken into account in sentencing even though it has already formed the factual basis of a statutory mechanism for the enhancement of the sentence, or of other charges brought against the offender. |
| Public Prosecutor v Nelson Jeyaraj s/o Chandran | High Court | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 1130 | Singapore | A third aspect of the rule against double counting is that if a factor has been fully taken into account at one stage in the sentencing analysis, it should generally not feature again at another stage. |
| ADF v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 874 | Singapore | A sentencing factor that has been “fully factored” into the sentencing equation in the first stage where the individual sentences are calibrated should not be taken into account again at the second stage where the aggregate sentence is determined. |
| Poh Boon Kiat v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 892 | Singapore | Another example may be found in Poh Boon Kiat v Public Prosecutor [2014] 4 SLR 892, where the offender pleaded guilty to eight charges under Part XI of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed), with a further 12 similar charges taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing. |
| Public Prosecutor v Sakthikanesh s/o Chidambaram and other appeals and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 707 | Singapore | In considering the appropriate sentencing framework for offences under the Enlistment Act (Cap 93, 2001 Rev Ed), a three-judge bench of the High Court explained that, in relation to such offences, the fact that an offender had voluntarily surrendered and had also pleaded guilty should not be considered distinct mitigating factors as these factors shared the same normative substance. |
| Chong Han Rui v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHC 25 | Singapore | The principle of parity in sentencing between co-offenders urges that sentences meted out to co-offenders who are party to a common criminal enterprise should not be unduly disparate from each other: “those of similar culpability should receive similar sentences, while those of greater culpability should generally be more severely punished” (at [1]). |
| Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 1370 | Singapore | A warning is no more than an expression of the opinion of the relevant authority that the recipient has committed an offence. It does not bind the recipient. It does not and cannot amount to a legally binding pronouncement of guilt or finding of fact. Only a court of law has the power to make such a pronouncement or finding |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Section 324 of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| Section 147 of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| Section 307(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| Section 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Sentencing
- Unrelated Offences
- Totality Principle
- Double Counting
- Consecutive Sentences
- Concurrent Sentences
- Rehabilitation
- Deterrence
15.2 Keywords
- sentencing
- criminal law
- singapore
- appeal
- unrelated offences
- totality principle
- double counting
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Sentencing | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Offences | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing Principles