Muhammad Rahmat v Public Prosecutor: Parity in Sentencing for Co-Offenders in Grievous Hurt Case
Muhammad Rahmat bin Abu Bakar appealed to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, seeking a reduced sentence to match his co-accused, Noor Awwalludeen bin Jamil, for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to an inmate. Both were initially charged under s 325 read with s 34 of the Penal Code. The High Court, presided over by Aedit Abdullah J, allowed the appeal, finding no justifiable reason for the disparity in sentencing and substituted the appellant's sentence of six years' imprisonment and six strokes of the cane with four years and six months' imprisonment and six strokes of the cane, aligning it with the co-accused's sentence.
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
Brief Remarks
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding parity in sentencing for co-offenders in a grievous hurt case. The court allowed the appeal, substituting the appellant's sentence to match the co-accused's.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Muhammad Rahmat bin Abu Bakar | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | Stephania Wong, Sadhana Rai |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Lost | Lost | Norine Tan |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Aedit Abdullah | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Stephania Wong | Law Society Pro Bono Services |
| Sadhana Rai | Law Society Pro Bono Services |
| Norine Tan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The appellant and co-accused were charged with voluntarily causing grievous hurt to an inmate.
- The appellant and co-accused assaulted the victim in a waiting room at the medical centre.
- The victim suffered severe injuries, including skull, facial, and rib fractures.
- The co-accused was sentenced to four years and six months’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane.
- The appellant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane.
- The appellant appealed against the imprisonment term, arguing for parity with the co-accused's sentence.
5. Formal Citations
- Muhammad Rahmat bin Abu Bakar v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9273 of 2021/01, [2022] SGHC 118
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant and co-accused beat up the victim | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Parity in Sentencing
- Outcome: The court held that the principle of parity was not properly applied in the initial sentencing, and the appellant's sentence was adjusted to match the co-accused's.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1998] 3 SLR(R) 95
- [2015] 5 SLR 167
- [2015] 4 SLR 1120
8. Remedies Sought
- Reduced Sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Sentencing Guidelines
11. Industries
- Corrections
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Ramlee and another action | Unknown | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 95 | Singapore | Cited as the seminal decision on the scope and effect of the parity principle in sentencing co-offenders. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ng Sae Kiat and other appeals | Unknown | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 167 | Singapore | Cited for expanding the parity principle to include offenders in a common criminal enterprise. |
| Public Prosecutor v BDB | Unknown | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 127 | Singapore | Cited for the two-step sentencing approach for cases under s 325 of the Penal Code. |
| Public Prosecutor v ASR | Unknown | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 941 | Singapore | Cited regarding the relevance of maturity in determining degrees of responsibility and moral culpability. |
| Tan Kay Beng v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 10 | Singapore | Cited regarding the materiality of antecedents in sentencing due to continuing criminal behavior. |
| Lim Bee Ngan Karen v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 1120 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principle that a co-offender need not be punished leniently if the original sentence was unduly lenient, provided there is an acceptable explanation for not appealing the original sentence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Sindok Trading Pte Ltd (now known as BSS Global Pte Ltd) and other appeals | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 52 | Singapore | Cited regarding the need to consider the appropriateness of each individual sentence, not just the global sentence. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 325 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 34 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 83 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Parity Principle
- Sentencing
- Co-Offenders
- Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt
- Common Intention
15.2 Keywords
- sentencing
- parity principle
- grievous hurt
- criminal law
- co-offenders
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Criminal Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing
- Criminal Law