1 The Accused pleaded guilty to three charges and consented for two charges to be taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing. The Court sentenced the Accused to the minimum period of 5 years’ corrective training and 6 strokes of the cane. The Accused is appealing against his sentence.

2 On 7 November 2025, the Accused (M/39) pleaded guilty to three charges as follows:

3 The Accused also consented for two charges to be taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing, namely, one charge under Section 147 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“PC”) and one charge under Section 103(5)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed).

4 Prosecution sought for the Accused to be sentenced to corrective training (of a period left to the Court) with six strokes of the cane. Counsel sought for a global sentence of 46 months’ imprisonment, enhanced sentence of 40 days’ imprisonment and 6 strokes of the cane.

5 The Court sentenced the Accused to the minimum period of 5 years’ corrective training and 6 strokes of the cane.

6 The sentence was backdated to the first arrest, 28 September 2020, and to take into account the Accused’s remand periods and to exclude the bail period. The Accused was first arrested on 28 September 2020 and released on station bail on 29 September 2020. He was subsequently re-arrested on 2 December 2024 and has been in remand since. The Accused was on bail from 29 September 2020 to 2 December 2024.

7 The Accused filed an appeal against sentence and is currently serving his sentence.

8 The Accused admitted to the Statement of Facts without qualification.

9 The victim is the Accused’s wife (“V1”). At all material times, the Accused and V1 were in a close relationship as they lived together with their three children and had frequent contact with each other.

10 On 14 October 2019, the Accused was sentenced to 30 months and 15 weeks’ imprisonment with effect from 6 April 2018 with six strokes of the cane for other offences such as rioting and causing hurt to V1. He was released on 22 February 2020. From 22 February 2020 to 19 January 2021, the Accused was subject to the Remission Order.

11 On 28 September 2020, at about 6 am, the Accused and V1 had a quarrel in their master bedroom. At about 6.15 am, the Accused left the room and proceeded to the kitchen where he retrieved a kitchen knife with a black and blue handle and an 18.5 cm long blade (“the Knife”). The Knife is an instrument for cutting.

12 As the Accused held the Knife by its handle, V1 screamed. The Accused then kicked V1 on her left ear and left arm, while holding the handle of the Knife. At about 6.15 am, the Accused swung the Knife several times towards V1’s head, intending to cause her hurt. The Knife made contact with V1’s head and left ear, thereby causing V1 to suffer superficial laceration wounds over her left parietal region and left ear.

13 Following the assault, the Accused returned the Knife to the place where he had taken it. The Accused and V1 returned to the master bedroom where the Accused spoke to V1 about his difficult time in prison. At about 8 am, V1 told the Accused that she wanted to go to a nearby shop. She then left the unit and sought police assistance.

14 On the same day, V1 sought medical attention at Khoo Teck Puat Hospital. She was examined and diagnosed to have suffered superficial laceration wounds over her left parietal region and left ear, as well as chest wall and left arm contusion, following the assault by the Accused. She was discharged on the same day with medication prescribed and four days of medical leave.

15 The Accused was arrested at about 10.54 am on 28 September 2020 and released on station bail on 29 September 2020.

16 The persons involved are (“the Group”):

(a) the Accused;

(b) [xx] (“B1”);

(c) [xx] (“B2”);

(d) [xx] (“B3”);

(e) [xx] (“B4”); and

(f) [xx] (“B5”).

17 The victim involved is Mohd Azlan bin Manan (“V2”), a 51-year-old male Singaporean.

18 At the material time, the members of the Group knew each other as friends or acquaintances, but they did not know V2.

19 Sometime between 11 pm on 10 April 2021 and 12.21 am on 11 April 2021, the members of the Group met up for food and drinks at East Coast Lagoon Food Village, located at 1220 East Coast Road, Singapore 468960 (“the Hawker Centre”).

20 At about 12.25 am, the Group left the Hawker Centre. Around this time, V2 and his family members left the Hawker Centre. While the other members in V2’s family headed for the carpark, V2 headed to the male toilet.

21 At the entrance of the male toilet, V2 bumped into the Accused. The Accused confronted V2 for having bumped into him, and a verbal dispute ensued between them. At the time, the other members of the Group stood around the Accused and backed him up.

22 At about 12.27 am, the Accused was a member of the Group, an unlawful assembly with the common object of voluntarily causing hurt to V2, and violence was used in prosecution of the said common object:

(a) B2 entered into a scuffle with V2;

(b) The Accused punched V2 in the face;

(c) V2 subsequently fell on the ground, and the six members of the Group surrounded V2 and punched and kicked V2 repeatedly.

23 The assault on V2 lasted approximately 20 seconds, and it ended when V2 managed to get up and run away from the Group.

24 After running away, V2 informed his then 20-year-old son (“V3”) that he had been attacked by several unknown persons. V3 then ran to the Hawker Centre to look for V2 and accompanied V2 back to the carpark.

25 At about 12.31 am, while V2 and V3 were walking out of the Hawker Centre together, they crossed paths with members of the Group, along with three others (“the 2nd Group”).

26 Another confrontation ensued and the members of the 2nd Group assaulted V2 and V3. This was the subject matter of the second section 147 PC charge that was taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing. Following the second assault, V2 and V3 ran away separately.

27 At about 12.32 am, an informant called the police and reported that a fight was taking place. The incident location provided was the Hawker Centre. Seven other police calls were made around the time in respect of the fight. In response to the calls, various teams of Police Officers were dispatched to the scene. As members of the Group and the three other persons involved in the assault had already left the scene, the police officers were unable to arrest them at the scene.

28 On 11 April 2021, V2 and V3 sought medical attention at Tan Tock Seng Hospital. They were diagnosed as having suffered the following injuries as a result of the fights that took place:

(a) V2 sustained mild swelling over the right cheek and tenderness on palpation; a superficial abrasion over the right nasal bone region; tenderness over the right lateral aspect of the chest; pain over the mid left forearm; and tenderness over the lumbosacral region of the lower back. V2 was diagnosed with oral analgesia and four days of medical leave;

(b) V3 sustained an abrasion over the right chin measuring 2 cm and an abrasion over the right anterior middle chest region measuring 3 cm. He was discharged with oral analgesia.

29 The Police were unable to locate the Accused in their investigations following the commission of the above offences.

30 Sometime in April to June 2021, sometime in the night, the Accused paid a boatman to send him from an unidentified coastal area in the vicinity of Changi Ferry Terminal, Singapore, to Indonesia. The Accused was eventually arrested by Indonesian authorities in Indonesia, in May 2023 for unrelated offences under Indonesian Law. After his detention in Indonesia, he was repatriated back to Singapore and was re-arrested on 2 December 2024. The Accused has been in remand since.

31 For the Section 147 PC charge, any person convicted of this charge shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to caning.

32  For the Section 324 PC charge, any person convicted of this charge shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, or with fine, or with caning, or with any combination of such punishments. The Accused is also liable to the enhanced punishment under section 74D(2) of the PC for this charge and liable to an enhanced sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding the remaining duration of the Remission Order under Section 50T(1)(a) of the Prisons Act.

33 For the Section 5(4) Immigration Act charge, any person convicted under this charge is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $2000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.

34 The Accused’s conviction history is set out as follows:

35 The Prosecution submitted for the Accused to be sentenced to corrective training (of a period left to the Court) with six strokes of the cane. ¹

36 The Prosecution submitted that the applicable sentencing framework was set out in Sim Yeow Kee v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2016] 5 SLR 936 (“Sim Yeow Kee”). ² Both parties did not dispute that the technical requirements for corrective training were met and that the Accused was not eligible for Mandatory Aftercare Scheme (“MAS”). ³

37 The Prosecution submitted for the following indicative sentences for the proceeded charges: ⁴

(a) Section 147 PC charge: 36 to 42 months’ imprisonment (consecutive) and at least 6 strokes of cane;

(b) Section 5(4) Immigration Act charge: 2 to 3 weeks’ imprisonment (concurrent);

(c) Section 324 PC charge: 12 to 14 months’ imprisonment (consecutive) and enhanced sentence of 50 to 64 days’ imprisonment.

38 The Prosecution submitted that taking into account the need for escalation ⁵ , the sentence of corrective training is not unduly disproportionate. ⁶ The Prosecution highlighted that for “recalcitrant offenders where there is a need for escalation”, the fact that the indicative sentence is lower than the five years’ minimum term of corrective training is not a bar against corrective training being imposed. ⁷ Thus, the Prosecution submitted that the serious nature of the Accused’s offences and need for escalation justified the imposition of corrective training. ⁸

39 For the section 5(4) Immigration Act Charge, as the offence is punishable with imprisonment for less than 2 years or more, the Prosecution applied for it to be taken into account for the purposes of determining the period of corrective training under Section 304(5) of the CPC. ⁹

40 Counsel submitted a mitigation plea and supplementary plea-in-mitigation. The Accused also submitted a mitigation plea letter for the consideration of the Court.

41 Counsel accepted that the technical requirements for corrective training under Section 304(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (“CPC”) have been satisfied ¹⁰ but submitted instead for a global sentence of 46 months’ imprisonment, enhanced sentence of 40 days’ imprisonment and 6 strokes of cane. ¹¹

42 Counsel submitted for the following individual sentences for the proceeded charges: ¹²

(a) For the Section 147 PC charge: 36 months’ imprisonment (consecutive) and 6 strokes of the cane;

(b) For the Section 324 PC charge: 10 months’ imprisonment (consecutive) and enhanced sentence of 40 days’ imprisonment;

(c) For the Section 5(4) Immigration Act charge: 2 weeks’ imprisonment (concurrent).

43 Counsel highlighted the following factors regarding the Accused’s personal background which showed “consistency in pursuing education and maintaining legitimate employment”: ¹³

(a) He has four children;

(b) He completed his education in the Institute of Technical Education and did not face any disciplinary issues. When he was in Batam, Indonesia, he enrolled in Islamic studies in a mosque there and set up his own bubble tea shop.

44 Counsel also highlighted that the Accused’s behaviour and attitudes in the period between his present offending and time in remand displayed “significant protective factors against future reoffending”: ¹⁴

(a) He has severed contact with antisocial peers in the past and developed closer relationships with prosocial individuals;

(b) He has engaged in educational and community-oriented activities. He has abstained from alcohol, which “coincided with his absence from violent offending” showing he can “desist from violent behaviour on his own accord” ¹⁵ ;

(c) While he had pro-violent beliefs and cognitive distortions in the past, he has “learnt to say no and acknowledges that his past violence occurred due to his inability to refuse peers” ¹⁶ ;

(d) The Accused had sustained religious engagement.

45 The Accused’s risk of re-offending is “moderate”. ¹⁷ Whilst the Accused is not eligible for MAS, Counsel submits that other programmes such as the Employment Preparation Scheme can rehabilitate and reintegrate the Accused into society. ¹⁸

46 Counsel submitted that it would be “unduly disproportionate” to impose corrective training for the Accused as it is unduly disproportionate compared to the term of imprisonment which the Accused would face (about 48 months) especially if remission is factored in. ¹⁹ The Accused has shown that he is willing to rehabilitate and has made progress in that aspect, which is supported by the Corrective Training suitability report. ²⁰ In the alternative, if the Court is minded to impose a sentence of corrective training, the mandatory minimum 5 year period will suffice. ²¹

47 The pre-sentencing report for corrective training (“the CT report”) found that the Accused was mentally and physically suitable for corrective training.

48 The CT report stated the following under “Risk Findings”:

(a) For Family/Marital, the Accused presented with supportive and close familial and intimate relationships that appear to serve as protective factors in his life. ²²

(b) For Education/Employment, the Accused demonstrated consistent ability to pursue education and maintain legitimate employment, with a pattern of career progression that suggests capacity for prosocial engagement when not impeded by his criminal record. ²³

(c) For Companions, the Accused presented with “significant difficulties in this domain” ²⁴ , with antisocial peer associations serving as a consistent contributing factor to his violent offending behaviour. The report also stated that the Accused “can form prosocial peers” which can serve as protective factors in managing his risk of violent reoffending. ²⁵

(d) For Leisure/Recreation, the Accused’s engagement in structured, prosocial leisure appears to serve as a protective factor that supports desistance from violent behaviour when maintained consistently. ²⁶

(e) For Alcohol/Drug problem, the Accused presented with “some concerns” in this domain. ²⁷ When combined with antisocial peer associations, alcohol consumption could increase his risk of reoffending. However, the Accused reported that he has ceased drinking since 2020.

(f) For Antisocial Pattern, the Accused presented:

(i) The report also stated that based on his pattern of reoffending, the Accused appeared prone to reactive violence when triggered by perceived slights or peer pressure. Despite multiple sanctions including probation, RTC, imprisonment and supervision, he persistently reoffended until the period he fled to Batam. ²⁹

(g) For Attitudes/Orientation, the Accused presented with “attitudes supportive of his offences, characterised by endorsement of pro-violent beliefs and cognitive distortions that consistently disinhibited his decision-making processes during his offending periods”. ³⁰

49 Under protective factors, the CT report identified the Accused's employment and educational history, current prosocial relationships and religious engagements as protective factors.

50 Overall, the CT report stated that the Accused is in the moderate risk/need level of criminal reoffending for general risk of criminal recidivism. For specific risk of violent reoffending, the Accused’s risk of violent reoffending is moderate with low imminence and severity.

51 Under Section 304(1) of the CPC, where a court is “satisfied that it is expedient with a view to the person’s reformation and the prevention of crime that the person should receive training of a corrective character for a substantial period of time, … the court, unless it has special reasons for not doing so, must sentence him to corrective training for a period of 5 to 14 years in lieu of any sentence of imprisonment, or any sentence of imprisonment and fine”.

52 Both parties agreed that the applicable sentencing framework is set out in Sim Yeow Kee. For the first stage, both parties agreed that the technical requirements for Section 304(1)(a) of the CPC were fulfilled.

53 For the second stage, the court considers whether it is expedient with a view to the offender’s reformation and the prevention of crime that he be sentenced to corrective training (see Sim Yeow Kee at [87]).

54 The High Court stated at Sim Yeow Kee at [98] that the “operative justification” for corrective training was “specific deterrence and the reformation of the offender”. The main issue before the Court is therefore whether these interests of specific deterrence and reformation warrant the imposition of corrective training.

55 The High Court noted at Sim Yeow Kee at [93] that the “principal difference” between corrective training and regular imprisonment was that corrective training mandated a minimum five year incarceration for the offender and does not automatically entitle the offender to a right to remission. Therefore, in circumstances where the imprisonment term likely to be imposed on the offender would be “appreciably shorter” than the mandatory minimum incarceration for corrective training, this raises the issue of proportionality (see Sim Yeow Kee at [93]). Proportionality remained relevant in the context of corrective training, although in an attenuated way, in that corrective training may be excluded if it would result in a term of imprisonment that would be unduly disproportionate (see Sim Yeow Kee at [98]).

56 Therefore, at Step 1 of the second stage, the Court should consider the sentence that it would actually impose for that offence if it decides not to sentence the offender to corrective training. In this regard, the Court has consideration of the following (see Sim Yeow Kee at [99]):

(a) The principle of escalation could justify a longer imprisonment term being imposed on a persistent offender in light of his antecedents. This “may be especially significant if a subsequent sentence for an offender who has already committed the same sort of offence needs to be escalated in order to specifically deter him from committing further offences of that nature”;

(b) The Court should consider whether more than two sentences should be run consecutively. This would be especially relevant for a persistent or habitual offender, where there are extraordinary cumulative factors or where there is a particular public interest.

57 The Court will address the imprisonment term that would likely be imposed on the offender for the underlying offence for each charge in turn.

58 For the Section 324 PC charge, the Prosecution submitted for 12 to 14 months’ imprisonment with an enhanced sentence of 50 to 64 days’ imprisonment. ³¹ Counsel submitted for 10 months’ imprisonment and enhanced sentence of 40 days’ imprisonment. ³²

59 Both parties agreed that the applicable sentencing framework for Section 324 PC was set out in Ng Soon Kim v Public Prosecutor [2020] 3 SLR 1097 (“Ng Soon Kim”).

60 Prosecution submitted that for Step 1 of Ng Soon Kim, the hurt fell within the higher end of Band 1 of the Niranjan framework in Niranjan s/o Muthupalani v Public Prosecutor [2024] 3 SLR 834 (“Niranjan”) and a starting sentence of 3 to 4 weeks’ imprisonment was warranted. ³³ For Step 2 of Ng Soon Kim, an uplift of 6 months’ imprisonment for the use of the knife. ³⁴ For Step 3 of Ng Soon Kim, an uplift to a final sentence of 12 to 14 months’ imprisonment (claim trial basis) on account of the Accused’s violent antecedents. ³⁵

61 For the multiplier under Section 74D(2) PC, the Prosecution submitted that a similar approach to Section 74B(2) PC in GFX v Public Prosecutor [2024] 4 SLR 1423 (“GFX”) should be adopted. ³⁶ The Prosecution submitted that the gravamen of the Section 74D(2) PC enhancement provision is the offender’s abuse of trust in the relationship which was evident in the Parliamentary Debates on its introduction: ³⁷

62 Prosecution thus submitted for the multiplier to be calibrated based on the “degree of the power imbalance in the relationship” and highlighted that in the unreported High Court case of Public Prosecutor v DGU ³⁸ (“DGU”), a similar approach was applied, and the following indicative multiplier ranges were suggested: ³⁹

(a) High power imbalance: 67 to 100%;

(b) Moderate power imbalance: 34 to 66%; and

(c) Low power imbalance: 1 to 33%.

63 The Prosecution submitted that there was a moderate power imbalance between the Accused and V1 ⁴⁰ and a 50% multiplier should be applied to reach 18 to 21 months’ imprisonment (claim trial basis) ⁴¹ . After calibrating for 30% plead guilty discount for Stage 1 plea of guilt, the Prosecution sought a sentence of 12 to 14 months’ imprisonment. ⁴²

64 Counsel submitted for Step 1 of Ng Soon Kim, the present offence falls under Band 1 of Niranjan and a starting sentence of 3 weeks’ imprisonment would be appropriate. ⁴³ For Step 2 of Ng Soon Kim, Counsel submitted that an uplift of 5 months’ imprisonment would be sufficient. ⁴⁴ For Step 3 of Ng Soon Kim, Counsel submitted that an uplift of 2 months’ imprisonment would be sufficient considering that the highest the Accused received for his most recent conviction for voluntarily causing hurt was 8 weeks’ imprisonment. ⁴⁵

65 Counsel submitted that the appropriate sentence after applying the Ng Soon Kim framework would be 7 months and 3 weeks’ imprisonment. ⁴⁶ Counsel agreed with the Prosecution with the use of the sentencing approach of the multipliers in DGU but submitted that the power imbalance was low. ⁴⁷ Counsel submitted that the degree of reliance V1 had was considerably lesser than in DGU and an applicable multiplier would be 30%. ⁴⁸ The enhanced sentence would be 10 months’ imprisonment.

66 The Court noted that the Prosecution took the approach of calibrating the sentence for the Section 324 PC charge under Step 1 to Step 3 of Ng Soon Kim and then applying the multiplier for Section 74D(2) PC, and then finally applying the plead guilty discount from the Stage 1 plea of guilt. Counsel also took the approach of calibrating the sentence for Section 324 PC in Ng Soon Kim and then applying the multiplier.

67 However, the Court noted that in GFX, the approach for the Section 325 read with Section 74B(2) PC offence was to first consider the indicative starting point for the “base” offence under Section 325 PC, second to apply the multiplier that would be determined based on the age of the victim at the time of offence, and then third to adjust the indicative enhanced sentence upwards or downwards based on the presence of relevant aggravating and/or mitigating factors.

68 Similarly, the framework adopted in DGU at [20] was to consider at step one the applicable band under the Pram Nair framework, at step two determine the applicable multiplier, at step three adjust the sentence for offender-specific factors and then at step four apply the appropriate plead guilty sentencing discount (if applicable).

69 Thus, the Court has calibrated the sentence for Section 324 PC as follows:

(a) First, Step 1 of Ng Soon Kim;

(b) Second, Step 2 of Ng Soon Kim;

(c) Third, applying the applicable multiplier under Section 74D(2) PC;

(d) Fourth, Step 3 of Ng Soon Kim for adjusting on the presence of relevant aggravating and/or mitigating factors.

70 For Step 1, the Court was of the view that the hurt caused fell under Band 1 of Niranjan. In Niranjan at [63], the sentencing range for first-time offenders who claimed trial for Band 1 is a range of fines or custodial term up to 8 weeks’ imprisonment. In this case, V1 suffered superficial laceration wounds over her left parietal region and her left ear, as well as chest wall and left arm contusion. She was given four days of medical leave. The Court was of the view that on a claim trial basis, a sentence of 1 month’s imprisonment should be imposed.

71 For Step 2, the Court agreed with the Prosecution that an uplift of 6 months’ imprisonment should be given for the use of the knife.

72 In considering the applicable multiplier under Section 74D(2) PC for the Section 324 PC charge, the Court noted that the High Court in DGU at [14] stated that the rationale for introducing Section 74D(2) of the PC is to “more harshly punish offenders who abuse their close relationship with the victim to exploit their trust and abuse them”.

73 The High Court was of the view in DGU at [16] that the “quantum of multiplier should be decided based on the overarching inquiry of the extent to which the victim was unable to protect himself/herself due to the close relationship with the offender”. In considering this inquiry, an important indicator would be “the extent of power imbalance between the offender and the victim due to the ‘close relationship’ between them” (see DGU at [17]).

74 As a guideline, the High Court in DGU at [18] stated that where the extent of power imbalance is moderate due to the close relationship such as “in cases where the victim is moderately reliant on the offender, or where there is a moderate degree of exploitation, abuse and/or manipulation in the relationship, a multiplier of 34-66% should be imposed”.

75 In this case, V1 was the Accused’s wife at the time of the Section 324 PC charge and was living in the same household with him with their three sons. The assault happened at about 6 am. After the assault, the Accused and V1 returned to the master bedroom where the Accused spoke to V1 about his difficult time in prison. At about 8 am, V1 told the Accused she wanted to go to a nearby shop and that was when she left the Unit and requested Police Assistance. According to the Statement of Facts at [8], V1 called the Police and stated “I staying at Block [x] however I want Police meet me at 203. I am scare. My husband just release from prison and earlier on beaten me. I need police to be here as soon as possible. I am injured”.

76 Significantly, V1 was also the victim of abuse from the Accused in his most recent previous conviction on 14 October 2019. The Accused was sentenced to a global sentence of 30 months and 15 weeks’ imprisonment with 6 strokes of cane for among other offences, causing hurt to V1. He was released on 22 February 2020 and committed this offence against V1 about 7 months after his release from Prisons.

77 Based on the plead guilty papers for the Accused’s 2019 convictions uploaded by the Prosecution, the Accused was convicted previously on three counts of Section 323 PC against V1:

(a) For the 5th charge, the Accused was convicted of punching the left side of her head, right side of her face and kicking her left rib area, causing her to fall and sustain bruise at the left periorbital region, mild swelling at the upper eyelid and bruise at left forearm. V1 was 23 weeks’ pregnant at the time. He received 4 weeks’ imprisonment;

(b) For the 9th charge, the Accused was convicted of kicking V1 on the nose, punching her head multiple times which resulted in her falling to the ground and continuing to punch her at the back of her head thereby causing her to sustain soft tissue injury to the left upper eyelid, left forehead, left maxilla and nasal bridge. V1 was 31 weeks’ pregnant at the time. He received 8 weeks’ imprisonment;

(c) For the 11th charge, the Accused was convicted of punching and slapping V1’s head multiple times, thereby causing her to sustain swelling and bruising over the periorbital regions, tenderness over the nasal bone and small right tympanic membrane perforation. He received 8 weeks’ imprisonment.

78 The Court noted that several of the TIC charges for the 2019 convictions also involved family violence against V1 and their children:

(a) One charge under Section 5(2)(a) of the Children and Young Persons Act (Cap 38, 2001 Rev Ed) (“CYPA”) for slapping a 2 year old victim with his hand on his right cheek twice causing the victim’s head to hit the wall and also elbowing the victim once;

(b) One charge under Section 5(2)(a) of the CYPA for elbowing a 14 year old victim on the right side of her forehead twice and kicking her once;

(c) One charge under Section 323 PC for slapping V1 on the left cheek;

(d) One charge under Section 323 PC punching V1 once on her nose and left cheek, grabbing her arm, pulling her and causing her to fall to the ground and head-butting her nose;

(e) One charge under Section 506 PC for threatening to kill his family, wife and the two children;

(f) One charge under Section 336(a) PC for opening the rear left passenger door and pushing his wife’s head out of the door twice while the taxi was still in motion.

79 Thus, considering the above circumstances, the Court agreed with the Prosecution’s submissions that this was a case of moderate power imbalance and a multiplier in this case of 50% would be fair. Hence, the enhanced sentence after the 50% multiplier would be 10.5 months’ imprisonment.

80 For Step 3, the Court will adjust the enhanced sentence based on the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors.

81 The Court noted that the Accused had swung the Knife several times at V1’s head, which was a vulnerable part of the body. The Accused had also kicked her on the left ear and left arm.

82 Both parties agreed that there should be an uplift based on the accused’s antecedents, but they differed on the quantum of the uplift. At [77] to [78] above, the Court had detailed the Accused’s most recent violent antecedents against V1 and her family. For the 2019 set of convictions, for violent offending, the Accused had also committed one count of rioting and one count Section 353 PC against a police officer. He was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment and 6 strokes of the cane for the rioting offence and 7 weeks’ imprisonment for the Section 353 PC charge.

83  The Court was of the view that the fact that the Accused re-offended about 7 months from his date of release and against the very same victim, V1, whom he committed several hurt offences in his previous 2019 convictions, made the need for escalation based on specific deterrence especially high. The Court noted that the nature of the hurt offence against V1 had also escalated from simple voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 PC to Section 324 PC with the use of a dangerous weapon.

84 Thus, after considering the above factors, the Court was of the view that there should be an uplift of 6 months’ imprisonment such that the final claim trial sentence would be 16.5 months’ imprisonment.

85 After calibrating for the 30% plead guilty discount for stage 1 plea of guilt, the Court would impose a sentence of 11 months 2 weeks’ imprisonment for the Section 324 PC charge.

86 The Accused is 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 of 114 days.

87 The Prosecution submitted that the Accused’s fresh Section 324 PC charge was a moderate breach of the Accused’s basic condition and would fall in the middle of Band 2 in the framework in Abdul Mutalib Bin Azman v Public Prosecutor and other appeals [2021] 4 SLR 1220 (“Abdul Mutalib”). ⁴⁹ The Prosecution thus sought an enhanced sentence of 50 to 64 days’ imprisonment. ⁵⁰

88 Counsel agreed that the Section 324 PC charge was a moderate breach but submitted that it should fall in the lower end of Band 2 in Abdul Mutalib because of the Accused’s relatively higher rehabilitative prospects and was of the view that 40 days’ imprisonment was appropriate.

89 The Court agreed with parties that the fresh Section 324 PC charge was a moderate breach and fell in Band 2 of Abdul Mutalib (1/3 to 2/3). The Court was of the view that considering that the Accused re-offended about 7 months after his release and the Section 324 PC was similar to his previous violent offences and was of moderate gravity that the breach would fall in the middle of Band 2. The Court calibrated to an enhanced sentence of 50 days’ imprisonment.

90 Thus, the likely sentence for the Section 324 PC charge if the Court decides not to sentence the offender to corrective training would be 11 months 2 weeks’ imprisonment and enhanced sentence of 50 days’ imprisonment.

91 For the Section 147 PC charge, the Prosecution submitted for 36 to 42 months’ imprisonment with at least 6 strokes of the cane. ⁵¹ Counsel submitted for 36 months’ imprisonment and 6 strokes of the cane.

92 The Prosecution submitted that based on Phua Song Hua v Public Prosecutor [2004] SGHC 33 at [42] that the Courts have “consistently imposed sentences between 18 to 36 months’ imprisonment with 3 to 12 strokes of the cane for ‘non-secret society related’ rioting offences”. ⁵² The Prosecution also highlighted that specific deterrence “assumes primacy” because the Accused was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment with 6 strokes of the cane in October 2019 for a rioting offence where: ⁵³

(a) The Accused pulled the victim out of a van and caused him to fall on the ground. He also retrieved a helmet from the van and used it to hit the victim multiple times, including on his head;

(b) The group assault took place in the middle of a road and caused disruption to traffic;

(c) The victim suffered a small brain bleed and fractures around his left eye, as well as other less serious injuries.

93 The Prosecution submitted that while the Accused’s current Section 147 PC charge was not as serious as his previous rioting offence, his culpability remains high because he initiated the confrontation with V2 and entered into a verbal dispute with him. ⁵⁴ He also faced a TIC charge for participating in a group assault against V3, V2’s son, shortly after the group assault against V2. ⁵⁵

94 Counsel accepted that the principle of escalation should apply for this Section 147 PC charge based on his rioting conviction in 2019. ⁵⁶ Counsel also accepted that there should be an uplift from the similar charge of rioting that was TIC-ed. ⁵⁷ However, Counsel submitted that this also needs to be “counterbalanced” by the Accused’s present rioting offence being not as serious as his previous rioting offence. ⁵⁸

95 The Court noted that the Accused re-offended for the Section 147 PC charge about 7 months after the section 324 PC charge. He had thus re-offended for a more serious violent offence whilst on station bail. His current rioting offence did not cause as serious injuries as the previous rioting offence and did not involve the use of a helmet, but his current rioting offence was also serious considering that he initiated the confrontation with V2 and even after V2 tried to run away, there was a second assault with an even bigger group against V2 and an additional victim, V3, after the first group assault.

96 The Court was of the view that based on escalation and the need for specific deterrence that was warranted in the Accused’s case, the plead guilty sentence for the Accused should be 40 months’ imprisonment and 6 strokes of the cane for the Section 147 PC charge.

97 For the Section 5(4) Immigration Act charge, the Prosecution submitted for 2 to 3 weeks’ imprisonment based on the case of Public Prosecutor v Loh Ping Huang [2024] SGDC 132 at [41]. ⁵⁹ Counsel submitted for a sentence of 2 weeks’ imprisonment since there were no aggravating factors and the Accused had pleaded guilty early in the proceedings. ⁶⁰

98 The Court noted that the Accused had committed this offence whilst on station bail and hence was of the view that 3 weeks’ imprisonment would be appropriate for the Section 5(4) Immigration Act charge.

99 Thus, the likely imprisonment the Court would impose if it decided not to sentence the offender to corrective training was as follows:

(a) For the Section 147 PC charge: 40 months’ imprisonment with 6 strokes of the cane;

(b) For the Section 324 PC charge: 11 months 2 weeks’ imprisonment and enhanced sentence of 50 days’ imprisonment;

(c) For the Section 5(4) Immigration Act charge: 3 weeks’ imprisonment.

100 As all three charges involve distinct offences committed on different occasions with distinct legal interests, the Court was of the view that all 3 sentences should run consecutively. This would better reflect the Accused’s overall offending and would be consistent with the totality principle.

101 Thus, the global imprisonment term if the Court decided not to impose the offender to corrective training will be 51 months 5 weeks’ imprisonment, enhanced sentence of 50 days’ imprisonment and 6 strokes of the cane.

102 Both parties agreed that the MAS was not available to the Accused. Thus, in this case, MAS did not militate against imposing corrective training.

103 Comparing the indicative imprisonment terms in [99]-[101] above and the mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years’ corrective training, the Court was of the view that it would not be unduly disproportionate.

104 The High Court in Sim Yeow Kee at [103] gave the following useful guidelines for considering if the sentence of corrective training is unduly disproportionate:

105 The High Court in Sim Yeow Kee at [104] stressed that the test of “expediency” in Section 304(1) of the CPC required the court to “balance the relative effectiveness of CT and regular imprisonment as sentencing options, having regard to the interests of the offender’s reformation, crime prevention and the need for specific deterrence”.

106 The High Court in Sim Yeow Kee at [105] also held that proportionality in this context applied only to an “attenuated extent” because the court would have already decided in principle that “an even longer term of incarceration is called for than the term of regular imprisonment which would likely be imposed”. The High Court thus held that proportionality is “best effected” as a “negating consideration” (italics in original) (see Sim Yeow Kee at [105]):

107 Comparing a global sentence of 51 months 5 weeks’ imprisonment, enhanced sentence of 50 days’ imprisonment with the minimum prescribed period of 5 years for corrective training, it cannot be said that the period of incarceration is seriously or unduly disproportionate to the aggregate imprisonment term arrived at in Step 1.

108 The key consideration for the Court in deciding to impose corrective training instead of regular imprisonment is whether the interests of specific deterrence and reformation warrant the imposition of corrective training. The Court was of the view that in light of the Accused’s history of offending, the circumstances of the Accused’s current violent offending and the fact that he absconded, that the interests of specific deterrence and reformation warranted corrective training.

109 The Court had summarised the findings of the Accused’s CT report above at [47] to [50]. Overall, the CT report stated that the Accused is in the moderate risk/need level of criminal reoffending for general risk of criminal recidivism. For specific risk of violent reoffending, the Accused’s risk of violent reoffending is moderate with low imminence and severity.

110 The CT report stated that the Accused presented with “a violence history characterised by cyclical patterns of aggression across multiple contexts”:

111 For Antisocial Pattern, the Accused presented:

112 The report also stated that based on his pattern of reoffending, the accused appeared prone to reactive violence when triggered by perceived slights of peer pressure. Despite multiple sanctions including probation, RTC, imprisonment and supervision, he persistently reoffended until the period he fled to Batam. ⁶²

113 For Attitudes/Orientation, the Accused presented with “attitudes supportive of his offences, characterised by endorsement of pro-violent beliefs and cognitive distortions that consistently disinhibited his decision-making processes during his offending periods”. ⁶³

114 The CT Report noted that the Accused demonstrated pro-violent attitudes that led him to commit the violent offences: ⁶⁴

115 The Court had considered and given some weight to the protective factors Counsel had raised in the mitigation submissions and that were in the CT Report. These considerations were also given weight in the calibration of the period of corrective training that was required.

116 However, the Court noted that several of the protective factors and improvements cited in the CT Report stemmed from the period after the Accused was described as “fleeing” ⁶⁵ to Batam, for example:

(a) Following his escape from Singapore, he claims to have “severed contact with all negative associates”. ⁶⁶ In Batam, he reportedly developed close relationships with the Imam and religious mosque attendees who guided him and persuaded him to surrender; ⁶⁷

(b) However, “since 2021 after fleeing to Batam”, the Accused “reportedly had managed to adopt a conventional and crime-free lifestyle where he was meaningfully employed, engaged in meaningful prosocial pursuits such as teaching Islamic studies and Microsoft skills to children, and reported that he did not commit any violence”. ⁶⁸

117 Considering that the Accused had illegally left Singapore and had absconded, the Court took the view that these developments in Indonesia needed to be viewed with circumspection. Firstly, considering that the Accused was on the run and had illegally absconded, it would not make sense to give full weight to his arguments that he has reformed and adopted a “crime-free lifestyle” when his very presence in Indonesia was illegal. Secondly, the Court also noted from the Statement of Facts at [32] that the Accused was arrested by Indonesian authorities in Indonesia in May 2023 for “unrelated offences under Indonesian law” and was only repatriated back to Singapore in December 2024 after his detention in Indonesia. Thus, it cannot be said that his period in Indonesia was completely crime-free such that it demonstrated that he had completely abstained from criminal offending.

118  Furthermore, the history of the Accused’s offending and his current violent offending required a strong element of specific deterrence in his sentence as well as the necessity to prevent crime. The circumstances of his current offending involved the Accused re-offending about 7 months after his release from his previous conviction, repeated violent offending for rioting and repeated and escalated violent offending against his then wife (V1). The Accused also re-offended twice whilst on station bail and absconded from Singapore for several years before he was repatriated back in 2024.

119 Overall, the Court was of the view that the Accused still showed a predilection for further violent re-offending and that corrective training would be necessary for his reformation and prevention of crime.

120 Hence, the court is satisfied that it is expedient with a view to the Accused’s reformation and the prevention of crime that the Accused be sentenced to the minimum period of 5 years’ corrective training instead of regular imprisonment.

121 Thus, having carefully considered all the relevant circumstances of the case, the Court sentenced the Accused to 5 years’ corrective training and 6 strokes of the cane.