Kamis bin Basir v Public Prosecutor: Preventive Detention & Backdating of Sentence

In Kamis bin Basir v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Kamis bin Basir against a ten-year preventive detention sentence for snatch theft and drug consumption. The court, comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Tay Yong Kwang JCA, and Vincent Hoong J, allowed the appeal in part, ordering the sentence to be backdated to the date of his arrest. The primary legal issue was whether the preventive detention sentence should be backdated, considering the appellant's history of reoffending and the need to protect the public.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed in part; the appellant’s sentence of ten years’ preventive detention was backdated to his date of arrest.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court addresses backdating preventive detention sentence for Kamis bin Basir, habitual offender, considering public safety and proportionality.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyAppeal allowed in partPartial
Eric Hu of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Kamis bin BasirAppellantIndividualAppeal allowed in partPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeNo
Tay Yong KwangJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Vincent HoongJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Eric HuAttorney-General’s Chambers

4. Facts

  1. The appellant, Kamis bin Basir, is a 54-year-old man with a history of criminal offenses.
  2. On January 20, 2022, the appellant stole a gold chain from an elderly woman.
  3. The appellant consumed heroin on the same day.
  4. The appellant has a history of drug and property-related offenses.
  5. The appellant was sentenced to ten years of preventive detention by the District Judge.
  6. The pre-sentencing report categorized the appellant as being at a high risk of criminal reoffending.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Kamis bin Basir v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9246 of 2022/01, [2023] SGHC 348
  2. Public Prosecutor v Kamis Bin Basir, , [2022] SGDC 297
  3. Public Prosecutor v Rosli bin Yassin, , [2013] 2 SLR 831
  4. Public Prosecutor v Png Gek Kwee, , [2022] SGDC 179
  5. Public Prosecutor v Ow Gan Wee, , [2023] SGDC 16
  6. Ravindran s/o Kumarasamy v Public Prosecutor, , [2023] 3 SLR 1343
  7. Re Salwant Singh s/o Amer Singh, , [2019] 5 SLR 1037
  8. Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik, , [2008] 1 SLR(R) 601
  9. Chua Chuan Heng Allan v Public Prosecutor, , [2003] 2 SLR(R) 409
  10. Public Prosecutor v Rahim bin Basron, , [2010] 3 SLR 278
  11. Public Prosecutor v Ng Kim Hong, , [2014] 2 SLR 245
  12. Sim Yeow Kee v Public Prosecutor and another appeal, , [2016] 5 SLR 936
  13. Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General, , [2017] 2 SLR 850
  14. Kwan Weiguang v Public Prosecutor, , [2022] 5 SLR 766
  15. ADF v Public Prosecutor and another appeal, , [2010] 1 SLR 874
  16. Kuah Teck Hin v Public Prosecutor, , [2022] 5 SLR 720
  17. Tan Ngin Hai v Public Prosecutor, , [2001] 2 SLR(R) 152
  18. Public Prosecutor v Low Ji Qing, , [2019] 5 SLR 769
  19. Mani Nedumaran v Public Prosecutor, , [1997] 3 SLR(R) 717
  20. Public Prosecutor v Raffi Bin Jelan and another, , [2004] SGHC 120
  21. Public Prosecutor v Syed Hamid bin A Kadir Alhamid, , [2002] 2 SLR(R) 1018
  22. Heng Jong Cheng v Public Prosecutor, , [1999] 1 SLR(R) 769
  23. Public Prosecutor v Wong Wing Hung, , [1999] 3 SLR(R) 304
  24. Public Prosecutor v Louis Pius Gilbert, , [2003] 3 SLR(R) 418

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Appellant committed snatch theft and consumed drugs
Appellant arrested
Appeal heard
Appeal allowed in part
Grounds of decision delivered

7. Legal Issues

  1. Backdating of Preventive Detention Sentence
    • Outcome: The court held that the power to backdate a sentence of preventive detention is not limited to exceptional cases and ordered the sentence to be backdated to the date of the appellant's arrest.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2013] 2 SLR 831
  2. Preventive Detention
    • Outcome: The court found that a sentence of preventive detention was justified given the appellant's history of reoffending and the need to protect the public.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against preventive detention sentence
  2. Backdating of sentence

9. Cause of Actions

  • Snatch Theft
  • Drug Consumption

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Sentencing Guidelines

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Public Prosecutor v Rosli bin YassinCourt of AppealYes[2013] 2 SLR 831SingaporeCited regarding the backdating of preventive detention sentences and the principle of public protection.
Public Prosecutor v Kamis Bin BasirDistrict CourtYes[2022] SGDC 297SingaporeThe District Judge’s grounds of decision for sentencing the appellant to preventive detention.
Public Prosecutor v Png Gek KweeDistrict CourtYes[2022] SGDC 179SingaporeCited for backdating a preventive detention sentence to the date of first remand, referencing s 318 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Public Prosecutor v Ow Gan WeeDistrict CourtYes[2023] SGDC 16SingaporeCited for backdating a preventive detention sentence to the date of first remand, based on the premise that there is no qualitative difference between a preventive detention sentence and a regular imprisonment sentence.
Ravindran s/o Kumarasamy v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[2023] 3 SLR 1343SingaporeCited regarding the considerations for imposing a sentence of preventive detention, focusing on the protection of the public.
Re Salwant Singh s/o Amer SinghUnknownYes[2019] 5 SLR 1037SingaporeCited regarding the considerations for imposing a sentence of preventive detention, focusing on the protection of the public.
Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed MallikUnknownYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 601SingaporeCited regarding appellate intervention in sentencing decisions.
Chua Chuan Heng Allan v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2003] 2 SLR(R) 409SingaporeCited regarding the discretion to take into account time spent in remand for a sentence of imprisonment.
Public Prosecutor v Rahim bin BasronHigh CourtYes[2010] 3 SLR 278SingaporeCited regarding the factors to consider when determining the length of a preventive detention sentence.
Public Prosecutor v Ng Kim HongHigh CourtYes[2014] 2 SLR 245SingaporeCited regarding the backdating of corrective training sentences.
Sim Yeow Kee v Public Prosecutor and another appealHigh CourtYes[2016] 5 SLR 936SingaporeCited regarding the backdating of corrective training sentences and the lack of qualitative difference between corrective training and regular imprisonment.
Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-GeneralUnknownYes[2017] 2 SLR 850SingaporeCited regarding the interpretation of statutes.
Kwan Weiguang v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[2022] 5 SLR 766SingaporeCited regarding sentencing as an art and not a science.
ADF v Public Prosecutor and another appealUnknownYes[2010] 1 SLR 874SingaporeCited regarding sentencing as an art and not a science.
Kuah Teck Hin v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[2022] 5 SLR 720SingaporeCited regarding the considerations for imposing a sentence of preventive detention, focusing on the protection of the public.
Tan Ngin Hai v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[2001] 2 SLR(R) 152SingaporeCited as an example of a disproportionate preventive detention sentence.
Public Prosecutor v Low Ji QingUnknownYes[2019] 5 SLR 769SingaporeCited regarding the principle of proportionality in sentencing.
Mani Nedumaran v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[1997] 3 SLR(R) 717SingaporeCited regarding the effect of backdating a sentence.
Public Prosecutor v Raffi Bin Jelan and anotherHigh CourtYes[2004] SGHC 120SingaporeCited as an example where the maximum of 20 years’ PD should be imposed.
Public Prosecutor v Syed Hamid bin A Kadir AlhamidUnknownYes[2002] 2 SLR(R) 1018SingaporeCited as an example where the maximum of 20 years’ PD should be imposed.
Heng Jong Cheng v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[1999] 1 SLR(R) 769SingaporeCited as an example where the maximum of 20 years’ PD should be imposed.
Public Prosecutor v Wong Wing HungUnknownYes[1999] 3 SLR(R) 304SingaporeCited as an example where the maximum of 20 years’ PD should be imposed.
Public Prosecutor v Louis Pius GilbertUnknownYes[2003] 3 SLR(R) 418SingaporeCited regarding the statutory limit which Parliament had enacted in respect of PD sentences.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
s 356 of the Penal Code 1871Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act 1973Singapore
s 304(2) of the Criminal Procedure CodeSingapore
s 318 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Preventive Detention
  • Backdating of Sentence
  • Habitual Offender
  • Criminal Reoffending
  • Public Protection
  • Criminal Procedure Code
  • Pre-Sentencing Report

15.2 Keywords

  • Preventive detention
  • Backdating
  • Sentencing
  • Criminal law
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Sentencing95
Criminal Procedure90
Preventive detention85
Backdating of Sentence75
Drug Crimes70
Theft65
Criminal Revision60
Administrative Law10

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Sentencing
  • Criminal Procedure