PP v See Li Quan Mendel: Robbery, Rape, and Theft Sentencing

In Public Prosecutor v See Li Quan Mendel, the High Court of Singapore sentenced See Li Quan Mendel for robbery by night with common intention, rape, and theft in dwelling with common intention. The court, presided over by Valerie Thean J, imposed a sentence of three years' imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane for the robbery charge, six years and nine months' imprisonment and three strokes of the cane for the rape charge, and three months' imprisonment for the theft charge, with some sentences running consecutively, resulting in an aggregate sentence of seven years' imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. The court considered the applicability of reformative training, ultimately prioritizing deterrence due to the seriousness of the offenses.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Accused sentenced to seven years' imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

See Li Quan Mendel was sentenced for robbery, rape, and theft. The court considered rehabilitation versus deterrence in sentencing a young offender.

1.7 Decision Date

29 October 2019

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Prosecution	Government Agency	Sentenced	Won	Gail Wong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Sheryl Yeo of Attorney-General’s Chambers
See Li Quan, Mendel	Defendant	Individual	Sentenced	Lost	Siraj Shaik Aziz of Criminal Legal Aid Scheme Ng Shi Yang of Criminal Legal Aid Scheme

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Valerie Thean	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Gail Wong	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Sheryl Yeo	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Siraj Shaik Aziz	Criminal Legal Aid Scheme
Ng Shi Yang	Criminal Legal Aid Scheme

4. Facts

The accused, 17 at the time of the offenses, conspired with two others to steal from sex workers.
The trio planned to offer up to $900 for sexual services, targeting foreign sex workers.
The accused and his accomplices employed two methods: stealing from the victim's bag or staging a loan shark argument.
The robbery charge involved the loan shark method, where the accused and Chow pretended to be loan sharks demanding payment from the victim.
During the robbery, the accused threatened the victim with a rod and a chopper, stealing cash and mobile phones.
After the robbery, the accused forced the victim to remove her clothes and raped her while threatening her with the chopper.
The theft charge involved stealing $670 from another victim's handbag while she was in the toilet.

5. Formal Citations

Public Prosecutor v See Li Quan, Mendel, Criminal Case No 16 of 2019, [2019] SGHC 255

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2017-07-01	Accused acquainted with Chow.
2017-08-01	Accused, Chow, and Yong discussed ways to make money.
2017-09-01	Theft Charge incident occurred.
2017-10-01	Accused contacted [V1] to provide sexual services.
2017-10-02	[V1] arrived at Yong’s residence.
2019-09-16	Accused pleaded guilty and was convicted.
2019-10-30	Grounds of decision issued.

7. Legal Issues

Rape
- Outcome: Accused was convicted of rape under s 375(1)(a) of the Penal Code and sentenced to six years and nine months’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2017] 2 SLR 449
  - [2017] 2 SLR 1015
  - [1992] 1 SLR(R) 63
Robbery
- Outcome: Accused was convicted of robbery by night with common intention under s 392 read with s 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to the mandatory minimum sentence of three years’ imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane.
- Category: Substantive
Theft
- Outcome: Accused was convicted of theft in dwelling with common intention under s 380 read with s 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment.
- Category: Substantive
Sentencing of Young Offenders
- Outcome: The court considered the applicability of reformative training, ultimately prioritizing deterrence due to the seriousness of the offenses.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2008] 1 SLR(R) 449
  - [2019] 1 SLR 941
  - [2016] 1 SLR 334

8. Remedies Sought

Imprisonment
Caning

9. Cause of Actions

Rape
Robbery
Theft

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Law
Sentencing

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Public Prosecutor v Mohammad Al-Ansari bin Basri	High Court	Yes	[2008] 1 SLR(R) 449	Singapore	Cited for the two-stage framework for sentencing young offenders.
Public Prosecutor v ASR	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] 1 SLR 941	Singapore	Cited for affirming the Al-Ansari framework and explaining the rationale for rehabilitation as the dominant sentencing objective for young offenders.
Public Prosecutor v Koh Wen Jie Boaz	High Court	Yes	[2016] 1 SLR 334	Singapore	Cited for the considerations where rehabilitation can be diminished or eclipsed by deterrence or retribution.
Public Prosecutor v NF	High Court	Yes	[2006] 4 SLR(R) 849	Singapore	Cited to explain the immeasurable harm inflicted on a victim by rape.
Pram Nair v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 1015	Singapore	Cited for the court's view that rape is generally regarded as the most grave of all the sexual offences.
Chia Kim Heng Frederick v Public Prosecutor	Court of Criminal Appeal	Yes	[1992] 1 SLR(R) 63	Singapore	Cited for the court's view that rape is generally regarded as the most grave of all the sexual offences.
Regina v Roberts	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1982] 1 WLR 133	England and Wales	Cited for the emphasis that a lengthy custodial sentence should be imposed following a conviction of rape, save in the most exceptional circumstances.
Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 449	Singapore	Cited for the sentencing framework for rape offences.
Public Prosecutor v BMR	High Court	Yes	[2019] 3 SLR 270	Singapore	Cited for the determination of the severity of harm for the purposes of the first stage of the Al-Ansari framework.
Public Prosecutor v Ong Soon Heng	High Court	Yes	[2018] SGHC 58	Singapore	Cited for the determination of the severity of harm for the purposes of the first stage of the Al-Ansari framework.
Public Prosecutor v Kwong Kok Hing	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 2 SLR(R) 684	Singapore	Cited for the public's expression of communitarian values to be promoted, defended and preserved.
Mohd Noran v Public Prosecutor	Court of Criminal Appeal	Yes	[1991] 2 SLR(R) 867	Singapore	Cited for the general rule that neither probation nor reformative training is suitable in cases of rape.
Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Noh Hafiz bin Osman	High Court	Yes	[2003] 4 SLR(R) 281	Singapore	Cited as an example of a case where rehabilitation yielded its usual primacy in the sentencing of a youthful offender.
Public Prosecutor v S	High Court	Yes	[2003] SGHC 70	Singapore	Cited as a relevant precedent where young rape offenders were sentenced to imprisonment and caning given the gravity of their offences and the harm caused.
Public Prosecutor v AGG	High Court	Yes	[2010] SGHC 89	Singapore	Cited as a relevant precedent where young rape offenders were sentenced to imprisonment and caning given the gravity of their offences and the harm caused.
Regina v Millberry	England and Wales Court of Appeal	Yes	[2003] 1 WLR 546	England and Wales	Cited for the list of nine aggravating factors.
A Karthik v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2018] 5 SLR 1289	Singapore	Cited for the retrospective and prospective rationale for sentencing youthful offenders.
Public Prosecutor v Lim Cheng Ji Alvin	High Court	Yes	[2017] 5 SLR 671	Singapore	Cited for the precedential value of unreported decisions.
Keeping Mark John v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2017] 5 SLR 627	Singapore	Cited for the precedential value of unreported decisions.
Soh Meiyun v PP	High Court	Yes	[2014] 3 SLR 299	Singapore	Cited for the premise of general deterrence.
PP v Kong Peng Yee	High Court	Yes	[2018] 2 SLR 295	Singapore	Cited for the premise of general deterrence.
Leon Russel Francis v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2014] 4 SLR 651	Singapore	Cited as an example where the offender's medical condition and the mens rea for the offence were connected.
Nur Azilah bte Ithnin v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2010] 4 SLR 731	Singapore	Cited for the facts on which the accused's capacity for rehabilitation rests must be carefully examined.
Vasentha d/o Joseph v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2015] 5 SLR 122	Singapore	Cited for the lack of a court antecedent certainly cannot be regarded as mitigating.
Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v Attorney-General	High Court	Yes	[2016] 1 SLR 1370	Singapore	Cited for a warning has no legal effect and is not binding on the recipient.
Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 2 SLR 998	Singapore	Cited for the totality principle.
Chang Kar Meng v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 68	Singapore	Cited for the benefit from a plea of guilt in sexual offences.
Chen Weixiong Jerriek v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2003] 2 SLR(R) 334	Singapore	Cited for regarding a 17-year old boy charged with multiple offences but without prior convictions to be a habitual offender.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 392 of the Penal Code	Singapore
s 34 of the Penal Code	Singapore
s 375(1)(a) of the Penal Code	Singapore
s 375(2) of the Penal Code	Singapore
s 380 of the Penal Code	Singapore
s 390(2) of the Penal Code	Singapore
Children and Young Persons Act (Cap 38, 2001 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 2 of the Children and Young Persons Act (Cap 38, 2001 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 305 of the Criminal Procedure Code	Singapore
s 375(3) of the Penal Code	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Robbery by night
Rape
Theft in dwelling
Common intention
Loan shark method
Shower method
Reformative training
Sentencing
Young offender
Deterrence
Rehabilitation

15.2 Keywords

Rape
Robbery
Theft
Sentencing
Youth offender
Singapore
Criminal Law

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Criminal Procedure	95
Criminal Law	95
Rape	95
Sex Offences	90
Sentencing	90
Offences	90
Robbery	85
Theft	80

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Sentencing
Youth Criminality