Lee Shing Chan v Public Prosecutor: Unlawful Stalking and Abusive Language Towards Public Servant
Lee Shing Chan and Tan Ah Lai appealed to the High Court of Singapore against their conviction in the Magistrate's Court for unlawful stalking under s 7 of the Protection from Harassment Act and using abusive words towards a public servant under s 6 of the same act. The charges arose from an incident where they followed National Environment Agency (NEA) officers after being issued a summons for illegal hawking. The High Court, comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Tay Yong Kwang JA, and Aedit Abdullah J, dismissed the appeals against conviction but allowed the appeals against sentence, reducing the imprisonment term for the s 7 charges and ordering the sentences to run concurrently.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeals against conviction dismissed; appeals against sentence allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Lee Shing Chan and Tan Ah Lai appealed against their conviction for unlawful stalking and abusive language towards a public servant. The appeals against conviction were dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Partial Win | Partial | Wong Woon Kwong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Daphne Lim of Attorney-General’s Chambers Norine Tan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jason Chua of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lee Shing Chan | Appellant | Individual | Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part | Partial | |
| Tan Ah Lai | Appellant | Individual | Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
| Aedit Abdullah | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Wong Woon Kwong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Daphne Lim | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Norine Tan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jason Chua | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Lee and Tan were unlicensed fruit hawkers selling fruits illegally near Yew Tee MRT station.
- NEA officers issued Tan a summons for being an unlicensed hawker and seized fruits and a makeshift display table.
- Lee, Tan, and Chow followed the NEA Van in a lorry for about three hours to various locations.
- The NEA officers tested whether the lorry was deliberately following them by driving into dead-end roads and relocating to different car parks.
- At Seah Im carpark, Lee and Tan hurled vulgarities at an NEA officer who refused to produce his warrant card.
- Shammir made a police report after his manager's advice.
- The NEA team parked at a car park at Sin Ming Drive on the manager's advice, and the lorry parked outside the car park.
5. Formal Citations
- Lee Shing Chan v Public Prosecutor, , [2020] SGHC 41
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| NEA officers spotted Lee and Tan selling fruits illegally near Yew Tee MRT station. | |
| Tan was issued a summons for being an unlicensed hawker. | |
| Lee, Tan, and Chow followed the NEA Van for approximately three hours. | |
| Shammir made a police report. | |
| Chow was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment on his s 7 POHA charge. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Judgment date. | |
| Sections 8A and 8B of POHA came into operation. | |
| Lee to surrender himself at the State Courts to commence serving his sentence. |
7. Legal Issues
- Unlawful Stalking
- Outcome: The court held that the elements of unlawful stalking were proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and the appeals against conviction were dismissed.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Course of conduct
- Intention to cause alarm
- Reasonableness of conduct
- Sentencing for Unlawful Stalking
- Outcome: The court adopted a five-step sentencing framework based on the Logachev case and reduced the sentences imposed by the Magistrate.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Applicable sentencing framework
- Aggravating factors
- Mitigating factors
- Parity of sentences
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Unlawful Stalking
- Using abusive words towards a public servant
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Statutory Offences
11. Industries
- Government (National Environment Agency)
- Law Enforcement
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lim Teck Kim v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] 5 SLR 279 | Singapore | Cited for the sentencing framework for unlawful stalking offences, which was later refined by introducing a points system to identify the appropriate sentencing band. |
| Sim Kang Wei v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] 5 SLR 405 | Singapore | Cited as a case that declined to follow the Lim Teck Kim framework, disagreeing with the view taken in Lim Teck Kim of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Terence Ng. |
| Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 449 | Singapore | Cited for its two-step framework for sentencing, considering offence-specific and offender-specific factors. |
| Logachev Vladislav v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 609 | Singapore | Cited for its five-step approach to sentencing, which the court adopted for unlawful stalking cases under s 7 of the POHA. |
| Mohd Akebal s/o Ghulam Jilani v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] SGCA 81 | Singapore | Cited to emphasize that sentencing guidelines are meant to guide the court towards the appropriate sentence in each case using a methodology that is broadly consistent, not to yield a mathematically perfect graph. |
| Nadarajamoorthy v Moreton | Supreme Court of Victoria | Yes | [2003] VSC 283 | Australia | Cited to show that stalking by following a victim is highly fact-dependent. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 6 of the Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 7 of the Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 7(5) of the Protection from Harassment Act | Singapore |
| s 6(5) of POHA | Singapore |
| s 7(6) of POHA | Singapore |
| s 8A POHA | Singapore |
| s 8B POHA | Singapore |
| s 8 of POHA | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Unlawful stalking
- Abusive words
- Public servant
- Course of conduct
- Harassment
- Alarm
- Distress
- Sentencing framework
- Parity of sentences
- Protracted conduct
15.2 Keywords
- Unlawful stalking
- Harassment
- Public servant
- Protection from Harassment Act
- Sentencing
- Course of conduct
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Protection from Harassment Act | 90 |
| Statutory offences | 85 |
| Criminal Law | 70 |
| Personal Injury | 15 |
| Torts | 10 |
| Administrative Law | 10 |
| Constitutional Law | 5 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Harassment
- Stalking
- Sentencing