1 The accused person, Indran s/o Padamma Pillay (“the Accused”), claimed trial before me to the following charge:

DAC 906454 of 2025

On 23 March 2025, at or around 10.30 pm, in the vicinity of Block 8 French Road, Singapore 200008, the Accused did voluntarily cause hurt to one Rakib by means of an instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, to wit, by slashing him using a chopper, with the intention of causing him hurt, thereby causing him to sustain a facial laceration across his left cheek, a superficial abrasion over his right forehead, an intraoral lower lip laceration, and a tongue tip laceration, and the Accused had thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 324 of the Penal Code 1871 (“the Penal Code”), and further,

from 27 January 2024 to 18 October 2025, the Accused was subject to a remission order made by the Commissioner of Prisons under Division 2 of Part 5B of the Prisons Act 1933 (“the Prisons Act”), which remission order was subject to the basic condition under section 50S(1) of the Prisons Act, and while the remission order was in effect, the Accused on 23 March 2025 committed the aforesaid offence, and was thereby liable to be punished under section 50T(1)(a) of the Prisons Act with an enhanced sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding the remaining duration of the remission order of 210 Days from 23 March 2025 to 18 October 2025 for that offence.

(hereinafter referred to as “the s 324 Charge”)

2  After a trial, I found the Accused guilty of the above charge and convicted him.

3 After the above conviction, the Accused decided to plead guilty to the following two further charges:

On 25 October 2024, at or around 2.01 a.m., at Block [redacted] King George’s Avenue # [redacted], Singapore, the Accused did voluntarily cause hurt to Renuka d/o Pandean, to wit, by punching her multiple times, including on her face area, with the intention of causing her hurt, thereby causing her to sustain:

(a) left periorbital oedema, with tenderness on palpation over the left eye;

(b) left forehead swelling, with mild tenderness on palpation;

(c) lip swelling;

(d) tenderness over bilateral elbows;

(e) tenderness over bilateral shoulders; and

(f) tenderness over bilateral hands, with swelling and bruising over bilateral knuckles

and the Accused had thereby committed an offence punishable under section 323 of the Penal Code 1871, and further,

from 27 January 2024 to 18 October 2025, the Accused was subject to a remission order made by the Commissioner of Prisons under Division 2 of Part 5B of the Prisons Act, which remission order was subject to the basic condition under section 50S(1) of the Prisons Act, and while the remission order was in effect, the Accused on 25 October 2024 committed the aforesaid offence, and was thereby liable to be punished under section 50T(1)(a) of the Prisons Act with an enhanced sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding the remaining duration of the remission order of 359 Days from 25 October 2024 to 18 October 2025 for that offence.

(hereinafter referred to as “the s 323 Charge”)

On 25 October 2024, at or around 2.50 a.m., at the common corridor outside Block [redacted] King George’s Ave # [redacted], Singapore, which is a public place, whilst drunk, the Accused did conduct himself in such a manner as to cause annoyance to Sergeant Abdul Raihan Bin Razak, a police officer, to wit, by kicking a metal gate forcefully in his presence, and the Accused had thereby committed an offence under section 14(2) of the Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Act 2015 (“the LCA”) punishable under section 14(2)(c) of the LCA, and further,

from 27 January 2024 to 18 October 2025, the Accused was subject to a remission order made by the Commissioner of Prisons under Division 2 of Part 5B of the Prisons Act 1933, which remission order was subject to the basic condition under section 50S(1) of the Prisons Act, and while the remission order was in effect, the Accused on 25 October 2024 committed the aforesaid offence, and was thereby liable to be punished under section 50T(1)(a) of the Prisons Act with an enhanced sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding the remaining duration of the remission order of 359 Days from 25 October 2024 to 18 October 2025 for that offence.

(hereinafter referred to as “the LCA Charge”)

4 One charge of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by means of a dangerous weapon under section 326 of the Penal Code (“the s 326 Charge”) was taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing with the consent of the Accused. ¹

5 I sentenced the Accused to a global sentence of:

(i) Forty-two months of imprisonment;

(ii) Enhanced sentence of imprisonment under section 50T(1)(a) of the Prisons Act of 267 days; and

(iii) Four strokes of the cane.

6 Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid sentence, the Prosecution has appealed against the same. The Accused did not appeal against his conviction on the section 324 Charge or the aforesaid sentence.

7 The facts were straightforward. In the evening of 23 March 2025 at about 10.30 p.m. the victim, Rakib was chit-chatting with his friends in the vicinity of Block 8, French Road, Singapore when the Accused suddenly appeared and slashed Rakib’s face with a chopper and ran away. Rakib did not know the Accused prior to the incident. The chopper was not recovered but at the trial, Rakib made a sketch of the chopper. ² As a result of the unprovoked attack, Rakib was found to have suffered the following injuries: ³

(i) a facial laceration across his left cheek;

(ii) a superficial abrasion over his right forehead;

(iii) an intraoral lower lip laceration, and

(iv) a tongue tip laceration.

8 After investigations by the police, the Accused was arrested on 24 March 2025 in the vicinity of his house. At the trial, the Accused’s defence to the charge was that of a bare denial. In his police statement recorded on 25 March 2025 ⁴ which the Accused conceded was given by him voluntarily, the Accused claimed that he was too drunk to remember what happened on the night of 23 March 2025. ⁵ However, when asked about the allegation that he had “used a weapon to hit a victim at the (scene)” and what he had to say about the allegation, the Accused answered, inter alia, that he was “not denying this allegation”. ⁶

9 The Accused did not deny that at the time of the offence, from 27 January 2024 to 18 October 2025, he was subject to a remission order made by the Commissioner of Prisons under Division 2 of Part 5B of the Prisons Act, which remission order was subject to the basic condition under section 50S(1) of the Prisons Act (“the Remission Order”).

10 At the end of the trial, I was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused was guilty of the s 324 Charge and convicted him accordingly. By committing the offence, he was also liable to be punished under section 50T(1)(a) of the Prisons Act with an enhanced sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding the remaining duration of the Remission Order (“Enhanced Sentence under s 50T of the Prisons Act”) of 210 Days from 23 March 2025 to 18 October 2025 for this offence.

11 The victim was Renuka d/o Pandean, a 31-year-old female Singaporean. At the material time, the Accused was in a romantic relationship with the victim. The victim began staying with the Accused in his home for about two months prior to 25 October 2024.

12 Sometime in the evening of 24 October 2024, the Accused and the victim went out for drinks in the vicinity of Clarke Quay, Singapore. They consumed about six cans of beer each during this time. At or around 9 p.m. on the same day, they decided to head back to the Accused’s home at Block [redacted] King George’s Avenue # [redacted], Singapore.

13 A few hours later, on 25 October 2024, at or around 2.01 a.m., during a heated argument at the Accused’s home, the Accused punched the victim multiple times, including on her face, with the intention of causing the victim hurt. As he was doing so, the victim attempted to defend herself by blocking the Accused’s punches using her hands and arms. The Accused landed some blows on the victim’s face, arms and hands. After the assault, the victim called her sister to inform her of the assault. The victim’s sister then called for police assistance.

14 A few minutes later, police officers arrived at the Accused’s home and proceeded to interview the victim and the Accused. The Accused was uncooperative and made multiple attempts to prevent the police officers from interviewing the victim. Police officers eventually escorted the Accused to the common corridor outside his home, which was a public place. Paramedics were also activated to attend to the scene to examine the victim.

15 At or around 2.50 a.m., as the paramedics were examining the victim in the Accused’s home, the Accused, who was still in the common corridor, continued to be uncooperative in his behaviour towards the police officers. During this time, the Accused kicked the metal gate to his home forcefully while in an agitated state, thereby conducting himself in such a manner as to cause annoyance to Sergeant Abdul Raihan Bin Razak, a police officer who was present at the scene. Necessary force was later used to effect the arrest of the Accused.

16 The victim was subsequently escorted and admitted to Tan Tock Seng Hospital in the early morning on 25 October 2024. She was examined and found to have sustained, among others, the following injuries as a result of the Accused’s assault on her:

(a) left periorbital oedema, with tenderness on palpation over the left eye;

(b) left forehead swelling, with mild tenderness on palpation;

(c) lip swelling;

(d) tenderness over bilateral elbows;

(e) tenderness over bilateral shoulders and

(f) tenderness over bilateral hands, with swelling and bruising over bilateral knuckles.

17 The victim was given analgesia and discharged well on 6 November 2024.

18 At all material times, the Accused was intoxicated due to his voluntary consumption of alcohol before the offences. While the Accused was in police custody after his arrest, a blood sample was taken from the accused and sent to the Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”) for analysis. Analysis revealed that the sample contained 167 mg of ethanol per 100 ml of blood.

19 The Accused had thereby committed the offences in s 323 Charge and the LCA Charge.

20 Further, in relation to both charges above, the Accused was subject to the same Remission Order as referred to [9] above. He was thereby liable to be punished with Enhanced Sentence under s 50T of the Prisons Act for a term not exceeding the remaining duration of the remission order of 359 Days from 25 October 2024 to 18 October 2025 for each of the offences in the charges above.

21 The Accused has a long list of antecedents as follows:

22 The Prosecution pointed out ⁸ that the Accused was released on conditional remission on 27 January 2024 under the Remission Order after having served part of a five years and three months’ long imprisonment term for his previous violence-related convictions. Less than three months after his release, he reoffended on 15 April 2024 with the s 326 Charge. Barely six months later, while still on conditional remission, he reoffended again on 25 October 2024 with the s 323 Charge and the LCA. On 19 February 2025, he was issued a 12- month conditional warning for these three offences. Around a month later, the Accused reoffended yet again on 23 March 2025 in breach of the conditional warning and Remission Order, by committing the offence in the s 324 Charge, of which he was convicted after the trial.

23 Given the Accused’s criminal history as summarised in [21] and [22] above, the nature and gravity of his present offences, and his proclivity for future violent offending, the Prosecution submitted that the sentencing considerations of prevention and deterrence – both general and specific – must take centre stage and urged the Court to call for both Corrective Training (“CT”) and Preventive Detention (“PD”) suitability reports on the Accused pursuant to s 304(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (“CPC”).

24 Applying the two-stage inquiry set out in Sim Yeow Kee v PP [2016] 5 SLR 936 (“Sim Yeow Kee”) to determine if a CT or PD ⁹ suitability report should be called, the Prosecution submitted as follows:

25 The technical requirements for both CT and PD under s 304(1)(a) and s 304(2)(a) of the CPC respectively were met: ¹⁰

(a) The Accused, being 40 years of age, satisfied the age threshold requirements for both CT and PD;

(b) The Accused had been convicted by a District Court of the s 324 Charge, which is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years. Additionally, he was also convicted of the s 323 Charge which is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years;

(c) Since reaching 16 years of age ¹¹ , the Accused had been convicted in Singapore on at least three occasions of offences punishable with imprisonment for two years or more, and he was sentenced to imprisonment on at least two of those occasions. For instance, the Accused was convicted:

(i) In 2009, of unauthorised possession of a controlled drug (punishable with up to 10 years’ imprisonment) (see [21] above, at s/n.6);

(ii) In 2018, of failing to remain indoors as required under a Police Supervision Order under the CLTPA” (punishable with imprisonment of not less than one year and not more than three years) (see [21] above, at s/n. 7); and

(iii) In 2022, of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means (punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 15 years) (see [21] above at s/n. 8).

26 The Prosecution then referred to the numerous imprisonment terms which the Accused had been sentenced to since the age of 16 years as set out in [21] above. ¹²

27 Under the two-stage inquiry, once the technical requirements are found to have been fulfilled, the Court should then consider whether it is expedient to sentence the offender to CT or PD. CT has the twin aims of crime prevention and the reformation of the offender, while the imposition of PD is focused on crime prevention alone: Sim Yeow Kee at [84]. In relation to PD specifically, general deterrence and the social value in keeping a hardened criminal out of circulation provide the legitimate basis and operative justification for the application of this regime: Sim Yeow Kee at [97]. ¹³

28 The Prosecution submitted that it was likely to be expedient for the Accused to be sentenced to CT or PD, based on an application of the three-step framework set out in Sim Yeow Kee as follows: ¹⁴

29 At Step 1, the Court first considers the imprisonment term that would likely apply to the offender in the circumstances of the case before it turns to consider whether it is expedient to impose CT or PD instead: Sim Yeow Kee at [99]. The point here is that the sentencing Court must consider whether regular imprisonment alone would suffice, as well as have a clear basis for assessing whether the imposition of CT or PD would result in punishment that is unduly onerous. ¹⁵

30 For this charge, the Prosecution submitted that the likely sentence was four years and three months to five years and three months’ imprisonment. ¹⁶ Applying the sentencing framework set out in Ng Soon Kim v PP [2020] 3 SLR 1097 (“Ng Soon Kim”), as modified in PP v Soo Cheow Wee [2024] 3 SLR 972 (“Soo Cheow Wee”, at [109]- [112]), the three-step approach provides as follows: ¹⁷

(a) At Step 1, the court will consider what an appropriate sentence will be had the hurt in question, without any reference to the dangerous means used, been the subject of an offence under s 323 of the Penal Code. This involves an application of the following sentencing framework as set out in Niranjan s/o Muthupalani v PP [2024] 3 SLR 0834 (“Niranjan”) which applies to a first-time offender under s 323 of the Penal Code who claims trial (at [63]):

(b) At Step 2, the court will consider the application of a suitable uplift, having regard to the dangerous means used.

(c) At Step 3, the court calibrates the final sentence, having regard to other considerations, such as the various aggravating and/or mitigating circumstances at play.

31 Applying the three-step approach in Soo Cheow Wee, the Prosecution submitted as follows: ¹⁸

(a) At Step 1 of the framework, had the hurt alone been the subject of a charge brought under s 323 of the Penal Code (and without considering offender-specific factors at this stage per Soo Cheow Wee at [110(b)]), this case would have fallen somewhere towards the low to mid end of Band 3 of the framework in Niranjan, corresponding to a claim-trial sentencing range of between 12 and 36 months’ imprisonment. As per Low Song Chye v PP [2019] 5 SLR 526 at [85], injuries involving permanent scarring of the face would fall under Band 3. As shown in exhibit P7, the scar arising from the seven-cm laceration caused to Rakib’s left cheek remained prominent more than a year after the incident. PW2 Dr Brenton Sio had also testified that the scar arising from Rakib’s injury will be permanent, even though it was likely to fade with time. Additionally, Rakib sustained scars to his forehead and lower lip, which similarly remained visible by the time of the trial. Rakib was also given nine days of hospitalisation leave following the incident. Given the permanence of the injuries on a prominent and vulnerable part of the body (i.e., the face), the indicative sentence should be in the low to mid end of Band 3. The Prosecution submitted that the indicative starting point should be around 18 to 22 months’ imprisonment.

(b) At Step 2, the Prosecution submitted for an uplift of nine to 11 months’ imprisonment for the use of a chopper. In Soo Cheow Wee at [126], an uplift of six months’ imprisonment for the offender’s use of a knife was affirmed by the High Court. In Miya Manik v PP [2020] SGHC 164, the High Court observed that choppers were amongst the most dangerous type of weapons and by the very purpose of their invention, were capable of cutting through bone, muscle and arteries (at [121]). The High Court thus applied an uplift of three years’ imprisonment for the offender’s use of a chopper, albeit in the context of an offence under s 326 of the Penal Code. Given that a chopper was inherently more dangerous than a knife, an uplift of nine to 11 months’ imprisonment would be appropriate.

(c) At Step 3, the various aggravating and/or mitigating circumstances should be considered, including offender-specific factors (see Soo Cheow Wee at [110(b)] and [112]). The Prosecution submitted that a further uplift of 24 to 30 months’ imprisonment should be applied at this step in view of the numerous serious aggravating factors at hand:

(i) The Accused committed the offence while intoxicated due to his voluntary consumption of alcohol. This was a well-established aggravating factor;

(ii) The offence was senseless, unprovoked and committed against an unsuspecting victim who was unknown to the Accused and who was in no position to defend himself. Furthermore, the offence was brazenly committed in public and in full view of numerous onlookers [including PW1 (Manjit), PW4 (Rajendran) and PW7 (Sivakkumar)];

(iii) The Accused has a long history of antecedents and has been in and out of prison or detention under the CLTPA from 2009 till date. Of significance, the Accused has two violence-related offences under s 324 and s 326 of the Penal Code for which he was convicted in 2022. These offences bore a striking similarity to the Accused’s present offence. The two offences pertained to a single incident on 9 December 2019 during which the Accused used a 30-cm knife to slash two victims at a club, causing one of them to suffer lacerations over the side of his scalp, and the other to sustain a 10-cm laceration across his left cheek which resulted in permanent disfiguration. Along with his other charges, the Accused was sentenced to a global term of five years and three months’ imprisonment and 11 strokes of the cane. Barely three months after he was released on remission on 27 January 2024, the Accused reoffended with another similar offence (see (iv) below), thus showing that even long periods of regular imprisonment were insufficient to deter him from criminal conduct. The Prosecution submitted that therefore the principles of specific deterrence and escalation ought to feature with full force in the present case;

(iv) The s 326 Charge, which was taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing, ought to uplift the sentence given the striking similarity in the manner of offending. On 15 April 2024, less than a year prior to the s 324 Charge on 23 March 2025, the Accused slashed another victim using a 29-cm long chopper, resulting in the victim sustaining a right thumb open distal phalanx fracture and superficial partial thickness lacerations to his right mid-dorsal forearm. The Accused was administered with a 12-month conditional warning for that offence (along with the other two proceeded charges) on 19 February 2025 but reoffended by committing the s 324 Charge merely a month after the conditional warning was administered;

(v) According to PW3 (Dr Kenneth Koh) and the psychiatric report he prepared dated 5 April 2025 (Exhibit P4), the Accused suffers from anti- social personality disorder and has been assessed to be a danger to others. Dr Koh also testified in his examination-in-chief that he assessed the Accused’s risk of reoffending to be moderate to high. Dr Koh’s findings raised concerns regarding the Accused’s proclivity for future offending and called for a sentence which would give effect not just to specific deterrence, but also to the consideration of prevention.

32 The Prosecution submitted that on the application of the framework in Ng Soon Kim, the likely sentence for the Accused’s s 324 Charge was four years and three months to five years and three months’ imprisonment. As the Accused had been convicted after trial, he was not eligible for a sentencing reduction which would otherwise be available to an offender who pleaded guilty. ¹⁹

33 In addition, the Prosecution submitted that at least four strokes of the cane should be imposed for this offence in light of the principles of specific deterrence and escalation. In 2022, the Accused received two strokes of the cane for his conviction under s 324 of the Penal Code, three strokes of the cane for his conviction under s 326 of the Penal Code and six strokes of the cane for his conviction under s 6(1) of the CESOWA. ²⁰

34 The Prosecution submitted that the likely sentence for this charge would be around five to six months’ imprisonment. ²¹

35 Applying the two-stage sentencing framework in Niranjan, the Prosecution submitted as follows: ²²

(a) At Stage 1 of the framework, based on the hurt caused in the charge, it was a Band 2 case (corresponding to a claim-trial sentencing range of between 8 weeks and 12 months’ imprisonment). Band 2 cases comprised, among others, harm resulting in short hospitalisation or a substantial period of medical leave. In the present case, the victim was hospitalised for a period of almost two weeks (from 25 October to 6 November 2024) and sustained a myriad of injuries, including a left periorbital oedema, swelling to her lips, and tenderness over her upper limbs. The indicative starting point should be in the region of three to four months’ imprisonment on a claim-trial basis;

(b) At Stage 2 of the framework, an uplift of around three to four months’ imprisonment would be appropriate, considering:

(i) the Accused’s voluntary alcohol intoxication;

(ii) the fact that the assault took place in the sanctity of the shared residence of the Accused and the victim;

(iii) the Accused’s long history of antecedents, which included convictions for violent offences; and

(iv) the offence was committed merely nine months after he was released on remission following his conviction for violent offences.

36 Applying a 20% sentencing reduction to the claim-trial sentence of six to eight months’ imprisonment for the Accused’s plea of guilt, the likely sentence for this offence would be around five to six months’ imprisonment. ²³

37 For this charge, the Prosecution submitted that a short custodial term of one to two weeks’ imprisonment would be the likely sentence to be imposed on the Accused. ²⁴

38 The Prosecution submitted that the sentencing approach with respect to Enhanced Sentence under s 50T of the Prisons Act was set out in Abdul Mutalib bin Aziman v PP [2021] 4 SLR 1220 (“Abdul Mutalib”) at [87] as follows: ²⁵

(a) First, the court should consider the relevant factors at hand. These include:

(i) The gravity of the fresh offence. This involved considering the type of offence, the duration, the consequences of the offence, and the offender’s motivations.

(ii). The offender’s rehabilitative prospects. This involved looking at the similarities between the fresh offence and the underlying offence, the timing of the fresh offence, and the offender’s level of commitment to rehabilitation and reintegration.

(iii). All other relevant circumstances. At this stage, care should be taken to avoid double-counting of factors considered in determining the appropriate offences for which he has been convicted of.

(b) Second, based on the above factors, the court should determine which sentencing band below the case at hand would fall under:

39 Applying the sentencing approach in Abdul Mutalib, the Prosecution submitted that the following enhanced sentences should be imposed: ²⁶

40 In respect of the s 324 Charge, the Prosecution submitted that it was clearly a serious offence as the prescribed maximum imprisonment was seven years. The Prosecution pointed out that the Accused’s rehabilitative prospects were poor – he was as recently as 2022 convicted of similar and related antecedents. His history of antecedents show that lengthy imprisonment terms had done little to deter him from reoffending. In fact, he reoffended with s 324 Charge barely a year after having been released on remission. As such, the Prosecution proposed pegging the offence to the high end of Band 2. ²⁷

41 In respect of the s 323 Charge, the Prosecution pointed out that although it was less serious than the s 324 Charge, it was nonetheless a violent offence with a prescribed maximum imprisonment term of three years. Similarly, his rehabilitative prospects were poor, given his antecedents and history of violence-related offences. The Accused committed this offence nine months after being released on remission (about halfway through the duration of his remission). In the circumstances, the Prosecution proposed pegging the offence to the low end of Band 2. ²⁸

42 In respect of the LCA Charge, the Prosecution conceded that it was a less serious one but noted that the offence was also committed by the Accused around nine months after being released on remission. The Prosecution proposed pegging the offence to the middle of Band 1. As the Prosecution had submitted that the likely imprisonment term for this charge would be around one to two weeks’ imprisonment (see [37] above), and bearing in mind the guidance in Abdul Mutalib that any enhanced sentence imposed should ordinarily not exceed the underlying sentence imposed for the fresh offence (at [55]), the Prosecution capped the proposed enhanced punishment for this charge at seven to 14 days. ²⁹

43 For the global sentence, the Prosecution submitted that the imprisonment terms for the s 324 Charge and s 323 Charge should run consecutively. This would be consistent with the general rule that a multiple offender who commits unrelated offences should be separately punished for each offence, and this should be achieved by an order that the individual imprisonment terms run consecutively: PP v Raveen Balakrishnan [2018] 5 SLR 799 at [41] and [48]. After taking into account the enhanced punishment terms to be imposed, the likely global imprisonment term imposed on the Accused would be between four years eight months one week and 247 days’ imprisonment (i.e., approximately five years and four months in total) and five years nine months two weeks and 294 days’ imprisonment (i.e., approximately six years and seven months in total). This was to be accompanied by at least four strokes of the cane. ³⁰

44 The Prosecution pointed out that none of the offences concerned in the proceeded charges fell within the First Schedule to the Prisons Act. Accordingly, the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme (“MAS”) would not apply to the Accused and would not be a consideration militating against the imposition of CT or PD. ³¹

45 On the question of whether the imposition of CT or PD would be unduly disproportionate to the aggregate term of regular imprisonment which would otherwise likely be imposed, the Prosecution submitted that the question should be firmly answered in the negative, given that the Prosecution had submitted that the likely global imprisonment term to be imposed on the Accused would be between five years and four months to six years and seven months. ³²

46 In any event, the Prosecution cited the following observation by the High Court in Sim Yeow Kee (at [105]) on the application of the principle of proportionality in sentencing at this stage of the analysis: ³³

“… proportionality in this context applies to an attenuated extent because the court would, by this stage, already have determined that in principle, despite the availability of other sentence enhancement options, an even longer term of incarceration is called for than the term of regular imprisonment which would likely be imposed. In our judgment, this is best effected by incorporating proportionality as a negating consideration which would justify not imposing CT if the statutorily-prescribed minimum term of CT would result in a period of incarceration that is seriously or unduly disproportionate to the aggregate imprisonment term which has been arrived at in applying Step 1 and Step 2, and which would otherwise likely be imposed.”

[Emphasis in italics in the PSS]

47 In relation to PD, the High Court also observed as follows (at [97]): ³⁴

“In the context of PD, general deterrence and the social value in keeping a hardened criminal out of circulation provide a legitimate basis and operative justification for the application of this regime. Thus, we consider that considerations of proportionality would not apply rigorously in such circumstances. Here too, these considerations would have limited scope for displacing the imposition of a term of PD where such a sentence would otherwise be warranted.”

[Emphasis in italics in PSS]

48 In the circumstances, the Prosecution submitted that the principle of proportionality applied only in “an attenuated manner” in the context of CT and has an even more limited scope for displacing the imposition of PD where such a sentence was otherwise warranted. The Prosecution therefore invited the Court to call for CT and PD suitability reports on the Accused. ³⁵

49 In mitigation, the Accused urged the Court to not call for CT or PD suitability reports and to impose imprisonment terms on him. ³⁶

50 The Accused also tendered a letter of mitigation written on his behalf by the victim in the s 323 Charge. ³⁷ In the letter, the victim described herself as the Accused’s fiancée and said that they planned to get married. She urged the Court to give the Accused a chance to rebuild his life with her support.

51 In view of the Accused’s long list of antecedents as summarised in [21] and [22] above, the nature and gravity of his present offences, and his propensity to reoffend, in particular with offences involving violence, I agreed with the Prosecution that the sentencing considerations of prevention and deterrence – both general and specific – must take centre stage and therefore it would be appropriate to consider whether the Accused should be sentenced to CT or even PD.

52 For this purpose, I agreed with the Prosecution that the two-stage inquiry sentencing framework set out in Sim Yeow Kee would be applicable in the present case in order to determine if a CT or PD suitability report should be called.

53 From the Prosecution’s analysis as set out in [25] to [26] above, I agreed with the Prosecution’s submissions that the Accused satisfied the technical requirements for CT and PD to be imposed.

54 Applying the sentencing framework set out in Ng Soon Kim (and as modified in Soo Cheow Wee)(“the modified Ng Soon Kim sentencing framework), the Prosecution submitted that the likely imprisonment term was four years and three months to five years and three months’ imprisonment. I disagreed.

55 At Step 1 of the modified Ng Soon Kim sentencing framework, as the most serious injury caused to Rakib was the seven cm long permanent scar on his left cheek, which is a prominent area of the face, I agreed with the Prosecution that the injury shall come under the low to mid end of Band 3 in the Niranjan sentencing framework, which provides for a starting sentence of 12- 36 months’ imprisonment. In considering the appropriate starting sentence. I considered the fact that there were two other injuries caused to Rakib in the attack, namely, scars to his forehead and lower lip, and laceration to the tip of his tongue. On the other hand, the permanent scar was likely to fade with time and Rakib was given nine days of hospitalisation leave following the incident, a relatively short period (see [31(a)] above). Therefore, I would place the starting sentence at this stage at 15 months’ imprisonment, instead of the Prosecution’s proposed 18 to 22 months. In arriving at this starting sentence, I note that this was already higher than the indicative starting sentences for the grievous hurt cases which I had referred to in PP v Koh Ronald [2026] SGDC 131 at [43] as follows:

56 At Step 2, as the weapon used was that of a chopper, I agreed with the Prosecution that there should be an uplift of nine months’ imprisonment in the starting sentence of 15 months, making it 24 months’ imprisonment at this stage.

57 At Step 3, I further agreed with the Prosecution on the aggravating factors in the present case as set out in [31(c)] above. However, I was of the view that a further uplift of 24 to 30 months’ imprisonment at this step would be excessive, as this would effectively be doubling the starting sentence arrived at Step 2 of the sentencing framework or more. This would also be incongruent with the Prosecution’s rather lenient treatment of the Accused’s s 326 Charge, when the Accused was at first given a 12-month conditional warning for this charge, and when the Accused breached the conditions by reoffending, this charge was not proceeded with for trial but only taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing, after the Accused was convicted of the s 324 Charge. (see [31(c)(iv)] above). Nevertheless, in view of the seriousness of the aggravating factors, including his previous convictions for the exact same offence and that of a more serious offence under s 326 of the Penal Code in 2022, I imposed an uplift of 12 months’ imprisonment, making it a total of 36 months’ imprisonment at this stage. This was lower than the four years and three months to five years and three months’ imprisonment which the Prosecution had submitted for (see [32] above). As the Accused was convicted for this offence after a full trial, he was not eligible for any sentencing discount.

58 On the sentence of caning, I agreed with the Prosecution’s submission that at least four strokes of the cane should be imposed for this offence, in light of the principles of specific deterrence and escalation (see [33] above). For this purpose, the Accused was given two strokes of the cane for his conviction for the same offence under s 324 of the Penal Code in 2022 but that had failed to deter him from reoffending. Therefore, I imposed a sentence of four strokes of the cane on the Accused for this charge.

59 Hence, for this charge, the likely sentence would be 36 months’ imprisonment and four strokes of the cane. This is equivalent to three times the one-year imprisonment term which the Accused had received for the same offence in 2022.

60 For this charge, I agreed with the Prosecution’s submissions as set out in [34] to [36] above and imposed a sentence of six months’ imprisonment on the Accused.

61 Similarly, I also agreed with the Prosecution’s submissions on the appropriate sentence for this charge as set out [37] above and I imposed a sentence of one-week imprisonment.

62 For the Enhanced Sentence under s 50T of the Prisons Act, I agreed with the Prosecution that the sentencing approach as set out in Abdul Mutalib was applicable. I further agreed with the Prosecution’s submissions as set out in [38] to [42] above in relation to the enhanced sentences to be imposed. In the circumstances, the Accused was sentenced to the following enhanced sentences:

(a) For the s 324 Charge- 140 days’ of imprisonment;

(b) For the s 323 Charge- 120 days’ of imprisonment; and

(c) For the LCA Charge- seven days’ of imprisonment.

Total: 267 days’ of imprisonment.

63 For the global sentence, as the s 324 Charge and s 323 Charge were committed against different victims and on different dates, I agreed with the Prosecution that it would be appropriate to order the sentences for these offences to run consecutively, with the sentence for the LCA Charge to run concurrently, making it a total of 42 months’ imprisonment (or three years and six months’ imprisonment). Together with the Enhanced Sentence under s 50T of the Prisons Act of 267 days, this would bring the total imprisonment term to three years six months and 267 days’ imprisonment (or about four years and three months’ imprisonment ³⁸ ). In addition, four strokes of the cane were imposed for the s 324 Charge.

64 As none of the offences concerned in the proceeded charges fell within the First Schedule to the Prisons Act, I agreed with the Prosecution that the MAS would not apply to the Accused if he were sentenced to regular imprisonment and therefore would not be a consideration militating against the imposition of CT or PD on him (see [44] above).

65 I have found at [63] above that the likely global imprisonment term to be imposed on the Accused, together with the Enhanced Sentence under s 50T of the Prisons Act, was four years and three months’ imprisonment. This was nine months short of the minimum term of five years for CT, and two years nine months short of the minimum term of seven years for PD. Having considered the totality of the circumstances of the case, in particular the Accused’s long list of antecedents as set out in [21] above and the seriousness of the s 324 Charge, I was still of the view that to impose even the minimum of five years of CT on the Accused would be unduly disproportionate, notwithstanding that proportionality in this context should apply to an attenuated extent, and that MAS was not applicable to the Accused if he were to be sentenced to regular imprisonment. This was because:

(a) There are now no longer any “qualitative” differences between the CT regime ³⁹ and regular imprisonment as a whole (Sim Yeow Kee at [81]);

(b) The global imprisonment term to be imposed on the Accused, together with the Enhanced Sentence under s 50T of the Prisons Act, was nine months short of the minimum term of five years for CT, and two years nine months short of the minimum term of seven years for PD; and

(c) The global imprisonment term to be imposed on the Accused, together with the Enhanced Sentence under s 50T of the Prisons Act of four years and three months’ imprisonment was sufficient in my judgement to serve the sentencing considerations of prevention and deterrence – both general and specific in the present case.

66 In view of the above, I declined to call for CT or PD suitability reports on the Accused and sentenced him instead as follows:

(a) For the s 324 Charge, 36 months’ imprisonment and four strokes of the cane, and Enhanced Sentence under s 50T of the Prisons Act of 140 days’ imprisonment;

(b) For the s 323 Charge, six months’ imprisonment, and the Enhanced Sentence under s 50T of the Prisons Act of 120 days’ imprisonment; and

(c) For the LCA Charge, one-week imprisonment, and the Enhanced Sentence under s 50T of the Prisons Act of seven days’ imprisonment.

67 The sentences for the s 324 Charge and s 323 Charge are to consecutively, with sentence for the LCA Charge to run concurrently, giving rise to a global sentence of 42 months’ imprisonment and total Enhanced Sentence under s 50T of the Prisons Act of 267 days’ imprisonment, with four strokes of the cane. As the Accused was in remand since 15 April 2024, I backdated his sentence to this date.

68 My decision in declining to call for CT and PD suitability reports might have been different had the Prosecution decided to proceed with the s 326 Charge and the Accused was convicted of the same, as it was a more serious charge than the s 324 Charge, and for which the Accused had also been convicted before. However, the Prosecution had decided to exercise its prosecutorial discretion on this to apply for the s 326 Charge to be taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing instead.

69 Further, I also made a compensation order pursuant to section 359 of the CPC for the Accused to pay $4,491.15 to Rakib, being the medical expenses incurred for the treatment of the injuries he had suffered as a result of the s 324 Charge. In default of payment, the Accused is to serve a default sentence of two months’ imprisonment.

70 Dissatisfied with my sentences imposed above, the Prosecution has appealed against the same. The Accused is currently serving the above sentences.