Kesavan Chandiran v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Manifestly Excessive Caning Sentence in Rioting Case
Kesavan Chandiran appealed to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore against his sentence of 17 months' imprisonment and three strokes of the cane for rioting, arguing the caning was manifestly excessive. The High Court, presided over by Vincent Hoong J, allowed the appeal in part, reducing the caning sentence to one stroke while affirming the imprisonment term. The court considered the parity of sentencing with co-accused individuals and the offender-specific factors.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed in Part
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex Tempore Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against a manifestly excessive caning sentence for rioting. The High Court reduced the caning sentence from three strokes to one, affirming the 17-month imprisonment.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal partially dismissed | Partial | Yang Ziliang of Attorney-General’s Chambers Nicolle Ng Hui Min of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Kesavan Chandiran | Appellant | Individual | Appeal allowed in part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Vincent Hoong | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Yang Ziliang | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Nicolle Ng Hui Min | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Justin Ng | Kalco Law LLC |
4. Facts
- The appellant pleaded guilty to one charge under s 146 of the Penal Code.
- The appellant was involved in an attack on five victims at a club.
- The victims sustained multiple lacerations, with at least one requiring surgery.
- The District Judge sentenced the appellant to 17 months’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane.
- A co-accused, Hafiz, received a sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane.
- Another co-accused, Selva, received a sentence of 17 months and 3 weeks’ imprisonment with no caning.
- The appellant had a prior conviction for the same offence and was placed on probation.
5. Formal Citations
- Kesavan ChandiranvPublic Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9195 of 2022/01, [2023] SGHC 25
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant and 17 others attacked five victims at a club. | |
| Appellant pleaded guilty to one charge under s 146 of the Penal Code. | |
| Magistrate’s Appeal No 9195 of 2022/01 filed. | |
| High Court delivered judgment, reducing caning sentence. |
7. Legal Issues
- Manifestly Excessive Sentence
- Outcome: The court found the original caning sentence to be excessive and reduced it.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Disparity in sentencing with co-accused
- Appropriateness of caning sentence
- Parity of Sentence
- Outcome: The court considered the parity of sentencing with a co-accused, but ultimately adjusted the sentence based on offender-specific factors.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Comparison of culpability between co-accused
- Consideration of offender-specific factors
- Relevance of Age in Sentencing
- Outcome: The court held that the difference in age between co-offenders can be a valid basis for modifying the application of the parity principle, even if both are above the age of majority.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Mitigating factor of youth
- Weight of rehabilitation vs. deterrence
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against sentence
- Reduction of caning sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Rioting
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Sentencing Guidelines
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phua Song Hua v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2004] SGHC 33 | Singapore | Cited for the general sentencing range for rioting offences. |
| Kesavan Chandiran v PP | District Judge | Yes | [2022] SGDC 250 | Singapore | Cited as the judgment being appealed against. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mok Ping Wuen Maurice | N/A | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 439 | Singapore | Cited regarding the presumption in favor of rehabilitation for offenders above 21 years old. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lim Cheng Ji Alvin | N/A | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 671 | Singapore | Cited regarding the presumption in favor of rehabilitation for offenders above 21 years old. |
| A Karthik v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 202 | Singapore | Cited regarding the presumption in favor of rehabilitation for offenders above 21 years old. |
| Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 449 | Singapore | Cited regarding the relevance of an offender's age in determining the weight of deterrence and rehabilitation. |
| Public Prosecutor v Wang Jian Bin | High Court | Yes | [2011] SGHC 212 | Singapore | Cited regarding the mitigating value of youth even when above 21 years of age. |
| Haliffie bin Mamat v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 636 | Singapore | Cited regarding the mitigating value of youth even when above 21 years of age. |
| Chong Han Rui v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHC 25 | Singapore | Cited regarding the application of the parity principle. |
| Lim Bee Ngan Karen v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 1120 | Singapore | Cited regarding accounting for personal circumstances when applying the parity principle. |
| Lim Poh Tee v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 241 | Singapore | Cited regarding accounting for personal circumstances when applying the parity principle. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lee Wei Zheng Winston | N/A | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR(R) 800 | Singapore | Cited regarding the consideration of the relative age of co-offenders. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 146 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 147 | Singapore |
| Covid-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020 s 34(7) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Rioting
- Caning
- Parity of sentence
- Manifestly excessive
- Co-accused
- Offender-specific factors
- Specific deterrence
- Rehabilitation
- Age of offender
15.2 Keywords
- Rioting
- Caning
- Sentencing
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
- Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Sentencing | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Administrative Law | 30 |
| Constitutional Law | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Criminal Procedure