Newton v Public Prosecutor: Cheating, COVID-19 Vaccination, and Sentencing Appeal

In Newton, David Christopher v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Mr. Newton against a 16-week imprisonment sentence for cheating. Mr. Newton conspired to deceive the Health Promotion Board (HPB) regarding his COVID-19 vaccination status. The Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon allowed the appeal in part, reducing the sentence to 12 weeks, finding the initial sentence manifestly excessive.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed in Part

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

David Newton appealed his 16-week imprisonment for cheating the Health Promotion Board regarding COVID-19 vaccination status. The appeal was allowed in part, and the sentence was reduced to 12 weeks.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencySentence ReducedLost
Jiang Ke-Yue of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Etsuko Lim of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Newton, David ChristopherAppellantIndividualAppeal Allowed in PartPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Jiang Ke-YueAttorney-General’s Chambers
Etsuko LimAttorney-General’s Chambers
Paul Loy Chi SyannWongPartnership LLP
Yii Li-Huei AdelleWongPartnership LLP

4. Facts

  1. Mr Newton conspired with Dr Quah and Mr Chua to deceive the Health Promotion Board.
  2. Mr Newton received saline injections instead of the COVID-19 vaccine.
  3. The National Immunisation Registry reflected that Mr Newton had been fully vaccinated against COVID-19.
  4. Mr Newton paid Mr Chua $6,000 for these services.
  5. Mr Newton pleaded guilty to a single charge of cheating.
  6. Mr Newton was sentenced to 16 weeks’ imprisonment by the District Judge.
  7. Mr Newton appealed against the sentence imposed by the District Judge.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Newton, David Christopher v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9091 of 2023/01, [2023] SGHC 266

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Mr Newton became acquainted with Mr Chua and asked him to arrange to falsely certify Mr Newton as having been vaccinated against COVID-19.
Mr Chua discussed Mr Newton’s request with Dr Quah.
Mr Chua discussed Mr Newton’s request with Dr Quah.
Mr Newton and Ms Apinya consulted Dr Quah at the Mayfair Medical Clinic located in Woodlands.
The National Immunisation Registry duly reflected Mr Newton and Ms Apinya as having received their first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.
Mr Newton and Ms Apinya consulted Dr Quah at the Mayfair Medical Clinic (Yishun Chong Pang).
Mr Newton was charged with two offences under s 417 read with s 120B of the Penal Code.
The Defence filed written submissions setting out their positions on sentence.
The Prosecution also filed a set of Reply Submissions.
Mr Newton pleaded guilty to the First Charge and consented to the Second Charge being taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment delivered.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Apparent Bias
    • Outcome: The court found that there was no apparent bias, despite the District Judge's reproduction of the Prosecution's submissions.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Judicial copying of submissions
      • Predisposition in favor of one side
  2. Manifestly Excessive Sentence
    • Outcome: The court found the initial sentence of 16 weeks' imprisonment to be manifestly excessive and reduced it to 12 weeks' imprisonment.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Harm occasioned by the offence
      • Culpability of the accused
      • Aggravating and mitigating factors

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against sentence

9. Cause of Actions

  • Cheating

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Appeals
  • Sentencing Guidelines

11. Industries

  • Healthcare

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
BOI v BOJCourt of AppealYes[2018] 2 SLR 1156SingaporeCited for the test of apparent bias, specifically whether the circumstances would give rise to a reasonable suspicion or apprehension of bias in the mind of a fair-minded and informed observer.
Public Prosecutor v Tan Jia YanState CourtsYes[2019] SGMC 60SingaporeCited by the District Judge as guidance for sentencing, but the Chief Justice found it to be a superficial comparison and not helpful as a precedent.
Yap Ah Lai v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2014] 3 SLR 180SingaporeCited regarding the risks of a sentencing judge reproducing entire passages from submissions without attribution or explanation.
Lim Chee Huat v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2019] 5 SLR 433SingaporeCited regarding the issue of judicial copying of written submissions and the concern that a judge is biased or appears to be biased.
Cojocaru v British Columbia Women’s Hospital and Health CentreSupreme Court of CanadaYes[2013] 2 SCR 357CanadaCited regarding the issue of judicial copying and the impression that the reasons for judgment do not reflect the judge’s thinking.
Nina Kung v Wong Din ShinHong Kong Court of Final AppealYes(2005) 8 HKCFAR 387Hong KongCited regarding the wholesale judicial copying of one side’s submissions and whether the judge had brought an independent mind to his judicial function.
IG Markets Ltd v Declan CrinionEnglish Court of AppealYes[2013] EWCA Civ 587England and WalesCited regarding the practice of substantially adopting the submissions of the respondent as his judgment and the impression that the judge had abdicated his core judicial responsibility.
Panchalai a/p Supermaniam and another v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2022] 2 SLR 507SingaporeCited for the difference between actual and apparent bias.
CFJ and another v CFL and another and other mattersCourt of AppealYes[2023] 3 SLR 1SingaporeCited for the difference between actual and apparent bias.
Flaherty v National Greyhound Racing Club LtdEngland and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)Yes[2005] EWCA Civ 1117England and WalesCited for the definition of actual bias.
Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd and anotherEngland and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)Yes[2000] QB 451England and WalesCited for the definition of actual bias.
Chee Siok Chin and another v Attorney-GeneralHigh CourtYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 541SingaporeCited for the burden of proving actual bias.
Wong Tian Jun De Beers v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2022] 4 SLR 805SingaporeCited for the principle that the failure by the District Judge to appreciate the harm caused led to a manifestly inadequate sentence.
Public Prosecutor v Bong Sim Swan SuzannaCourt of AppealYes[2020] 2 SLR 1001SingaporeCited for the principle that the sentencing court should look at all the surrounding facts, even those that do not form part of the relevant charge, so long as they are relevant and proved.
Public Prosecutor v Koh Thiam HuatHigh CourtYes[2017] 4 SLR 1099SingaporeCited for the principle that the two principal parameters a sentencing court would generally consider in evaluating the seriousness of a crime are the harm caused by the offence and the offender’s culpability.
Public Prosecutor v BPKHigh CourtYes[2018] 5 SLR 755SingaporeCited for the reason a court will sometimes decline to lay down a sentencing framework or benchmark for a given offence if there is a wide variety of factual circumstances in which that offence may be committed.
Public Prosecutor v Juandi bin PungotHigh CourtYes[2022] 5 SLR 470SingaporeCited for the reason a court will sometimes decline to lay down a sentencing framework or benchmark for a given offence if there is a wide variety of factual circumstances in which that offence may be committed.
Prometheus Marine Pte Ltd v King, Ann Rita and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2018] 1 SLR 1SingaporeCited for the principle that while the judge is required to keep an open mind, this does not mean he must come with an empty mind.
Leong Sow Hon v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2021] 3 SLR 1199SingaporeCited for the principle that where the risk of the particular potential harm eventuating is low, that will reduce the weight the court places upon it for the purpose of sentencing.
Logachev Vladislav v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2018] 4 SLR 609SingaporeCited for the principle that motive may affect the degree of an offender’s culpability for sentencing purposes.
Zhao Zhipeng v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 879SingaporeCited for the principle that persons who act out of pure self-interest and greed will rarely be treated with much sympathy.
Huang Ying-Chun v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2019] 3 SLR 606SingaporeCited for the principle that it is not meaningful for the sentencing court to ascribe separate weight to the offender’s motivations for committing the offence.
M Raveendran v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2022] 3 SLR 1183SingaporeCited for the principle that the law does not countenance such forms of social accounting in the sentencing of offenders.
Public Prosecutor v Law Aik MengHigh CourtYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 814SingaporeCited for the principle that there is a public interest in deterring like-minded persons from subverting such measures.
Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2017] 2 SLR 449SingaporeCited for the principle that Mr Newton’s plea of guilt was a subjective expression of genuine remorse and contrition.
Goh Ngak Eng v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2022] SGHC 254SingaporeCited for the case law has treated public disquiet as a harm-related sentencing factor.
Public Prosecutor v Wong Chee Meng and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2020] 5 SLR 807SingaporeCited for the case law has treated public disquiet as a harm-related sentencing factor.
Public Prosecutor v Mikhy K Farrera BrochezDistrict CourtYes[2017] SGDC 92SingaporeCited by the District Judge as a starting point for a plea of guilt to a cheating offence involving a public agency, but the Chief Justice disagreed.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code 1871Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code 2010Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Health Promotion Board
  • National Immunisation Registry
  • COVID-19
  • Saline injections
  • Vaccine-Differentiated Safe Measures
  • Apparent bias
  • Manifestly excessive sentence
  • General deterrence
  • Culpability
  • Harm

15.2 Keywords

  • cheating
  • covid-19
  • vaccination
  • sentencing
  • appeal
  • singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Sentencing90
Criminal Procedure80
Criminal Law75
Apparent bias60
Administrative Law30
Civil Litigation15
Contract Law10

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Sentencing
  • Criminal Procedure