Public Prosecutor v. Low Ji Qing: Sentencing Principles, Proportionality, and Mentally Disordered Offenders
In Public Prosecutor v. Low Ji Qing, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the sentence imposed on Low Ji Qing for three charges of simple theft. The Chief Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the District Judge had appropriately balanced the principles of proportionality, specific deterrence, and rehabilitation, considering Low's fetishistic disorder and adjustment disorder with depressed mood. The court upheld the global sentence of 10 months' imprisonment.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal concerning proportionality in sentencing for theft, considering specific deterrence, escalation, and the offender's mental disorder. Appeal dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Appellant | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Kong Kuek Foo of Attorney-General’s Chambers Tan Wen Hsien of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Low Ji Qing | Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Kong Kuek Foo | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Wen Hsien | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chooi Jing Yen | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
4. Facts
- Respondent stole wallets from female victims motivated by a fetishistic disorder.
- Respondent was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with depressed mood.
- Respondent attended psychotherapy sessions to address his underlying issues.
- Respondent returned the stolen wallet in one instance and left it with the cashier in another.
- Respondent had a history of theft and theft-related offences.
- Respondent was previously sentenced to 10 years’ preventive detention for property-related offences.
- Respondent breached a probation order twice.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Low Ji Qing, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9311 of 2018, [2019] SGHC 174
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Respondent stole a wallet from a female victim at the ION Sephora outlet. | |
| Respondent commenced psychotherapy and mindfulness sessions with Dr. Christopher Cheok. | |
| Respondent stole a wallet from a female victim at the Takashimaya department store. | |
| Dr. Cheok stated that the respondent had been able to control his impulse to steal. | |
| Respondent committed the third theft at the Don Don Donki store at Orchard Central. | |
| Respondent pleaded guilty to the 2nd and 3rd Charges before the District Judge. | |
| High Court heard the appeal. | |
| Detailed reasons for the judgment furnished. |
7. Legal Issues
- Proportionality in Sentencing
- Outcome: The court affirmed the importance of proportionality in sentencing, ensuring the punishment aligns with the offense.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 2 SLR 495
- Specific Deterrence and Escalation
- Outcome: The court considered the principles of specific deterrence and escalation in the context of a repeat offender, but found that they did not warrant a heavier sentence in this case.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2006] 4 SLR(R) 10
- Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders
- Outcome: The court addressed the relevance of the respondent's fetishistic disorder and adjustment disorder with depressed mood in sentencing, balancing deterrence with the mitigating effects of his mental state.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 4 SLR 1287
- [2015] 3 SLR 222
8. Remedies Sought
- Custodial Sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Theft
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Saiful Rizam bin Assim and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 495 | Singapore | Cited for the fundamental principle of sentencing – proportionality. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohammad Al-Ansari bin Basri | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 449 | Singapore | Cited for the task of a sentencing court to elicit the relevant principles in each case, and to balance them fairly, sensitive to the crime and the relevant circumstances. |
| Public Prosecutor v Low Ji Qing | Singapore District Court | Yes | [2015] SGDC 9 | Singapore | Cited for the respondent’s 2014 conviction for theft and related offences. |
| Public Prosecutor v Low Ji Qing | Singapore Magistrate Court | Yes | [2018] SGMC 85 | Singapore | Cited as the District Judge’s decision in the present case. |
| Lim Ghim Peow v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 1287 | Singapore | Cited for the applicable principles when sentencing an offender with a mental disorder. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chong Hou En | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 222 | Singapore | Cited for the applicable principles when sentencing an offender with a mental disorder. |
| Public Prosecutor v ASR | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 941 | Singapore | Cited for the causal link between the impairment of the mind and the commission of the offences. |
| Lim Hock Hin Kelvin v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR(R) 37 | Singapore | Cited in the context of paedophilia. |
| Public Prosecutor v Kong Peng Yee | High Court | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 295 | Singapore | Cited for the respondent’s actions as a “maladaptive response to a difficult or depressive … situation”. |
| Sim Yeow Kee v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 936 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that specific deterrence may justify a longer term of imprisonment being imposed on a persistent offender. |
| Tan Kay Beng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 10 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that specific deterrence may justify a longer term of imprisonment being imposed on a persistent offender. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ng Bee Ling Lana | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 448 | Singapore | Cited for consideration is given to whether a longer term of imprisonment might be called for to deter the accused person from committing a possible further offence. |
| Public Prosecutor v NF | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 849 | Singapore | Cited for the assessment aims to discern whether the accused person is a “hardened offender”. |
| Public Prosecutor v Fernando Payagala Waduge Malitha Kumar | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 334 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of escalation is aptly named not only because punishments meted out may escalate in severity, but also because it comes into play where the accused person’s antecedents display an escalating pattern of offending. |
| Soosainathan v Public Prosecutor | Malaysian High Court | Yes | [2001] 2 MLJ 377 | Malaysia | Cited for where the offender’s prior criminality “demonstrate[s] that the current offence is no passing lapse, but evidence of a real unwillingness … to comply with the law”. |
| Vasentha d/o Joseph v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 122 | Singapore | Cited for a court cannot take into account charges tendered by the Prosecution in respect of new offences allegedly committed by an accused person because by definition, he has not yet entered a plea of guilty, or elected to claim trial. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Koon Swan | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1985–1986] SLR(R) 914 | Singapore | Cited for a court cannot take into account charges tendered by the Prosecution in respect of new offences allegedly committed by an accused person because by definition, he has not yet entered a plea of guilty, or elected to claim trial. |
| Public Prosecutor v Law Aik Meng | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 814 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of proportionality. |
| Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 998 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of proportionality. |
| Veen v The Queen (No 2) | High Court of Australia | Yes | Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 | Australia | Cited for the law is clear that this “cannot be given such weight as to lead to the imposition of a penalty which is disproportionate to the gravity of the instant offence”. |
| Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 653 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of proportionality also applies in the comparison between the severity of the sentence imposed for the index offence and the gravity of the index offence in the context of the offender’s circumstances. |
| Iskandar bin Muhamad Nordin v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 265 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a potentially disproportionate sentence. |
| Tan Ngin Hai v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 152 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a wholly disproportionate sentence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Fook Sum | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 1022 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of proportionality is also a reflection of the principle of retribution. |
| Ng Jun Xian v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 3 SLR 933 | Singapore | Cited for where the harm occasioned by the offence and the offender’s culpability is sufficiently grave, retribution may prevail against the needs of rehabilitation. |
| Gan Chai Bee Anne v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 42 | Singapore | Cited for full restitution may substantially reduce the economic harm suffered by the victim. |
| Public Prosecutor v Goh Lee Yin | High Court | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 824 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of deterrence may apply to a mentally disordered offender who consciously chooses to be non-compliant with his medication. |
| Sim Wen Yi Ernest v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 207 | Singapore | Cited for while there is a presumption of a capacity for rehabilitation for youthful offenders, this does not wholly displace the rehabilitative principle when sentencing older offenders. |
| Tan Yao Min v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2018] 3 SLR 1134 | Singapore | Cited for rehabilitation is not incompatible with a lengthier term of imprisonment and can take place in prison. |
| Public Prosecutor v Koh Wen Jie Boaz | High Court | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 334 | Singapore | Cited for re-offending while on probation is a relevant factor in determining whether a second order of probation would be appropriate. |
| Nicholas Kenneth v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2003] 1 SLR(R) 80 | Singapore | Cited for a sentence of preventive detention is not a “sentence of imprisonment”, even though persons sentenced to preventive detention are often, in practice, detained in prison. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 379 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 339 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 337 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2018 Rev Ed) s 339 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2018 Rev Ed) s 337 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Proportionality
- Specific Deterrence
- Escalation
- Fetishistic Disorder
- Adjustment Disorder
- Depressed Mood
- Sentencing Principles
- Rehabilitation
- Theft
- Mandatory Treatment Order
15.2 Keywords
- sentencing
- proportionality
- theft
- mental disorder
- fetishism
- deterrence
- rehabilitation
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Sentencing | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 75 |
| Fetishistic Disorder | 60 |
| Criminal Law | 50 |
| Psychiatry | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Mental Health Law