Public Prosecutor v Oskar Song: Community Sentence & Amalgamated Charges
The High Court heard an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the decision of the District Judge to sentence Oskar Song Hauming to a community sentence for a Dishonest Misappropriation Charge and an Amalgamated Cheating Charge. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that community orders were not available as a sentencing option given that the Amalgamated Cheating Charge was punishable with a term of imprisonment exceeding three years by virtue of section 124(8)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court imposed a sentence of eight months' imprisonment for the Amalgamated Cheating Offence and two months' imprisonment for the Dishonest Misappropriation Charge, to run concurrently.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court considered if community sentences are available for amalgamated charges under the Criminal Procedure Code. The court allowed the appeal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Appellant, Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Allowed | Won | Niranjan Ranjakunalan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Mohamed Faizal SC of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Oskar Song Hauming | Respondent, Appellant | Individual | Cross-appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Vincent Hoong | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Niranjan Ranjakunalan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mohamed Faizal SC | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Harbajan Singh s/o Karpal Singh | Daisy Yeo & Co. |
4. Facts
- The accused was a Digital Marketing Manager at AAM Advisory.
- The complainant was the Chief Executive Officer of AAM Advisory and the rightful holder of the Diners Club credit card.
- The accused found the Diners Club credit card on the floor of a meeting room in the Company’s office.
- The accused misappropriated the Diners Card despite knowing that it belonged to the complainant.
- The accused used the Diners Card to make purchases for himself, his wife and his family members on 103 occasions.
- The items purchased had a total value of $20,642.48.
- The accused was diagnosed with Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder and suffered from a major depressive episode.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Song Hauming Oskar and another appeal, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9689 of 2020/01; Magistrate’s Appeal No 9689 of 2020/02, [2021] SGHC 169
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Accused misappropriated the Diners Club credit card. | |
| Accused used the Diners Club credit card to make purchases. | |
| Complainant lodged a police report. | |
| Accused used the Diners Club credit card to make purchases. | |
| Accused found an ATM card and returned it to an Information Centre. | |
| Dr Lionel Lim Chee Chong tendered psychiatric reports. | |
| Dr Jerome Goh Hern Yee tendered psychiatric reports. | |
| Dr Jerome Goh Hern Yee tendered psychiatric reports. | |
| Accused filed a cross-appeal against the Short Detention Order. | |
| Prosecution filed an appeal. | |
| Mr Victor Leong submitted Amicus Curiae’s Brief. | |
| Accused’s Skeletal Arguments submitted. | |
| Prosecution’s Submissions submitted. | |
| Accused’s Reply to Amicus Curiae’s Brief submitted. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Availability of community orders or community sentences
- Outcome: The court held that the word “offence” in s 337(1)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code refers to the amalgamated offence under s 124(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Meaning of the word “offence” in s 337(1)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code
- Does the word “offence” in s 337(1)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code refer to the amalgamated offence under s 124(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, or the underlying base offences which are amalgamated under s 124(4)?
- Purpose of framing an amalgamated charge under s 124(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code
- Outcome: The court held that the device of amalgamation under s 124(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code is not purely procedural in nature and has substantive implications.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Is the device of amalgamation under s 124(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code purely procedural in nature or does it have substantive implications?
- Sentencing of mentally disordered offenders
- Outcome: The court held that deterrence remains the dominant sentencing consideration, even when the offender suffers from a mental disorder.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Custodial Sentence
- Community Sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Dishonest Misappropriation
- Cheating
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
11. Industries
- Financial Services
- Retail
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Oskar Song Hauming | District Court | Yes | [2020] SGDC 181 | Singapore | Cited for the District Judge’s grounds of decision. |
| Public Prosecutor v Fernando Payagala Waduge Malitha Kumar | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 334 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that deterrence is the key sentencing consideration in credit card offences. |
| Idya Nurhazlyn bte Ahmad Khir v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 756 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that custodial sentences of between four and eight months’ imprisonment have been imposed for section 417 Penal Code offences that resulted in losses of between $1,000 and $15,000. |
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Cited for the three-step approach to purposive statutory interpretation. |
| Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 373 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that courts should have due regard to the context of the text within the written law as a whole. |
| Poh Boon Kiat v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 892 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the statutory maximum sentence signals the gravity with which Parliament views any individual offence. |
| Public Prosecutor v BDB | High Court | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 127 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that Parliament has, in the past, enhanced the permitted sentencing range of certain classes of criminal action which were regarded as deserving of harsher punishment. |
| Chua Whye Woon v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHC 189 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that serial offending heightens the culpability of the accused and shows his/her total disregard for the law. |
| R v A | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] EWCA Crim 177 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the purpose underpinning multiple counts is to enable the prosecution to reflect the defendant's alleged criminality when the offences are so similar and numerous that it is inappropriate to indict each occasion, or a large number of different occasions, in separate charges. |
| R v Cunningham (Christopher) | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] EWCA Crim 2704 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the option of framing multiple-count offences allows the Prosecution to better reflect the criminality of an accused when multiple offences are committed. |
| Gan Chai Bee Anne v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 4 SLR 838 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the totality principle remains authoritative. |
| Sim Gek Yong v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR(R) 185 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the onus lies on the Prosecution in the first place to assess the seriousness of an accused’s conduct and to frame an appropriate charge in the light of the evidence available. |
| Zhao Zhipeng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 879 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that persons who act out of pure self-interest and greed will rarely be treated with much sympathy. |
| Lim Ghim Peow v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 1287 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the manner and extent of the relevance of a mental disorder depends on the circumstances of each case, in particular, the nature and severity of the mental disorder. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chong Hou En | High Court | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 222 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that specific deterrence may remain relevant in instances where the offence is premeditated or where there is a conscious choice to commit the offence. |
| Kanagaratnam Nicholas Jens v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 5 SLR 887 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a lack of judgment can hardly be mitigating because every criminal hopes not to get caught and can be said to lack judgment in this respect. |
| Public Prosecutor v Goh Lee Yin and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 824 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in the normal case whereby the offender concerned has actively sought regular and extensive treatment, and has shown considerable effort in avoiding reoffending, the need for general deterrence would be fairly low or even nil. |
| GCX v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 3 SLR 1325 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the psychiatric condition of the offender substantially contributed to the commission of the offence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lim Cheng Ji Alvin | High Court | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 671 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that alleged charitable or other good works cannot be regarded as mitigating on some form of social accounting that balances the past good works of the offender with his/her offences. |
| Lim Bee Ngan Karen v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 1120 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that hardship to the offender’s family or himself/herself is not mitigating, save in exceptional circumstances. |
| Stansilas Fabian Kester v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 755 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that hardship to the offender’s family or himself/herself is not mitigating, save in exceptional circumstances. |
| Public Prosecutor v Charan Singh | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHC 115 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an accused’s employment record is only mitigating if there is a “rational relationship” between the accused’s contributions as an exemplary employee and the seriousness of the offence committed against the employer. |
| Public Prosecutor v Low Ji Qing | High Court | Yes | [2019] 5 SLR 769 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an accused person could well be rehabilitated in prison. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Criminal Procedure Rules 2020 (SI 2020 No 759) (UK) Rule 10.2(2) |
| Criminal Practice Directions 2015 Rule 10A.11 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 337(1)(i) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 124(4) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 124(8)(a)(ii) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 2(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 132(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 132(2) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 133 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 134 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 337(5) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 337(6) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 337(9) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 352(5)(b) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 354(6)(b) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 354(7)(b) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 417 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 403 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 379A | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 380 | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 9A(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Amalgamated Charge
- Community Sentence
- Dishonest Misappropriation
- Cheating
- Mental Disorder
- Deterrence
- Rehabilitation
- Maximum Enhanced Sentence
- Base Offence
- Course of Conduct
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Amalgamated Charge
- Community Sentence
- Sentencing
- Mental Disorder
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Sentencing | 95 |
| Criminal Procedure | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Contract Law | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Statutory Interpretation