1 This is the appeal by YHP (“the Youth”) against an order for him reside at Singapore Boys’ Hostel (“SBHL”) for a period of 12 months (“Hostel Order”). To be clear, the Hostel Order is not a separate order by itself, but one of the requirements of an order placing the Youth on probation for a period of 18 months with effect from 10 August 2026 (“Probation Order”), which is to take effect immediately after an order for him to be detained in Singapore Boys’ Home (“SBH”) for a period of 2 weeks with effect from 28 July 2026 (“Detention Order”). For clarity, all the aforesaid Orders (collectively, “Orders”) were passed on 28 July 2026.

2 On 1 April 2026, the Youth pleaded guilty to the following seven charges, after admitting to the Statement of Facts (“SOF”) without qualification:

3 The Youth also consented to the following five charges to be taken into consideration:

4 After the Youth was found guilty, I heard the Prosecution’s address on orders as well as mitigation from the Youth and his parents. I then called for a Probation Suitability Report (“PSR”) to be prepared to determine the appropriate dispositional orders and adjourned the case to 12 May 2026 for orders to be passed.

5 The case was re-fixed to 26 May 2026 on request by the Probation Officer, Ms Lee Tara (“PO”) on 5 May 2026 to allow the PO sufficient time to interview the Youth (due to his reported unavailability for interview sessions with the PO), complete the necessary assessments and incorporate the findings into the PSR.

6 The PO subsequently notified the Court on 19 May 2026 that during the interview, the Youth denied guilt for the 9th Charge, in that, contrary to paragraph 5 of the SOF, he claimed he was unaware that his co-accused did not have a Class 2B driving licence. The case was then fixed for mention on 25 May 2026 for the Youth to confirm if he was now denying his guilt for the 9th Charge, with the timelines for the preparation of the PSR held in abeyance.

7 At the mention on 25 May 2026, as regards the 9th Charge, the Youth admitted that he had allowed the co-accused to ride the vehicle (a motorcycle), but maintained that he did not know the co-accused did not possess a driving licence, and that he did not intentionally let the co-accused ride the vehicle knowing the latter had no licence. He maintained his plea of guilt for the remaining charges. The Prosecution’s position is that the Youth knew that the co-accused did not possess a driving licence and allowed the latter to ride the vehicle. The case was then adjourned for further mention on 22 June 2026 for the Youth to consider his position and seek legal advice and for the Prosecution to confirm whether the SOF for the 9th Charge is to be maintained or amended.

8 At the further mention on 22 June 2026, the Prosecution informed that the SOF for the 9th Charge would not be amended and would remain as it stands. The Youth then informed that he does not intend to contest the 9th Charge. He accepted that he would therefore be taken to admit to the SOF for this charge and that if the case is referred back to the PO, the SOF would be taken as correct. The Youth’s parents also understood the same. I then directed the case to be fixed for orders to be passed on 28 July 2026, and for the PO to proceed with the preparation of the PSR, with plea of guilt and SOF to stand.

9 In the PSR, the PO had assessed the Youth as not suitable for probation and recommended that he be sent to SBH under a juvenile rehabilitation centre (“JRC”) order for a period of 18 months (“Recommendation”) ¹ .

10 At the hearing on 28 July 2026, the Prosecution did not object to a JRC order of 18 months as per the Recommendation.

11 The Youth told the Court he did not wish to be placed in SBH for 18 months and wanted to be placed on probation at home. He claimed that he has changed and regretted his actions. He also claimed he did not breach his trial time restriction, had been attending school ² regularly and had a good GPA (Grade Point Average). His parents also wanted him to be placed on probation at home. They claimed that he has changed a lot and is obedient now and has turned over a new leaf. They also claimed they will ensure that he follows all the conditions imposed, including the time curfew. They added that he is doing well in school, and they did not want his performance in school to be affected.

12 After hearing from the Prosecution and the Youth and his parents, I indicated that I was not prepared to consider placing the Youth on probation at home, but I was prepared to consider placing the Youth on probation with a condition of hostel residence, after he serves a period of detention. I then invited the PO to address the Court on the proposed length and conditions of probation, if probation was to be considered.

13 The PO then recommended that the Youth serve 2 weeks of detention in SBH, and thereafter to be placed on 18 months split probation (16 months intensive and 2 months supervised) with the following conditions:

(a) To reside in SBHL for a period of 12 months;

(b) To be placed on electronic monitoring scheme for a period of 4 months after discharge from SBHL;

(c) To remain indoors from 9:00pm to 6:00am;

(d) To perform 50 hours of community service;

(e) To be prohibited from driving or obtaining all classes of driving licence during the probation period;

(f) To attend an anti-secret society talk;

(g) To attend a prison visit, subject to availability;

(h) Parents to be bonded to exercise proper care and guardianship;

(i) To attend a Progress Presentation Review in 4 months.

(collectively, “Updated Recommendations”)

14 The Youth and the parents initially voiced resistance to the proposed condition for him to reside in SBHL for a period of 12 months, as part of the Updated Recommendations. The Prosecution did not make further submissions on the Updated Recommendations. The hearing was stood down for the Youth and his parents to discuss among themselves.

15 When the hearing was reconvened, the Youth informed that he was prepared to follow all the Updated Recommendations. His parents also accepted the same. After consideration ³ , I accepted the Updated Recommendation and passed the Orders, comprising the Detention Order and the Probation Order.

16 On the day the Orders were passed on 28 July 2026, neither the Youth nor his parents applied for a stay of any or all of the Orders.

17 On 7 August 2026, the Youth, through newly appointed solicitors from M/s Ashvin Law Corporation (“ALC”), filed a Notice of Appeal against the Hostel Order only. The Youth did not appeal against the rest of the Orders.

18 Since the Youth did not contest the charges brought against him (and had maintained his plea of guilt for the 9th Charge), the issue to be determined is what are the appropriate dispositional orders to pass for him under section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1993 (“CYPA”).

19 As the Youth had only appealed against the Hostel Order, in this judgment, I will focus mainly on why I had concluded that the Probation Order (with the Hostel Order), after a short period of detention, would be the appropriate dispositional order for the Youth.

20  When a Court deals a youthful offender, there are two distinct but related stages (Public Prosecutor v Mohammad Al-Ansari bin Basri [2008] 1 SLR(R) 449 at [77] to [78] and Public Prosecutor v Koh Wen Jie Boaz [2016] 1 SLR 334 (“PP v Boaz Koh”) at [28]). The first stage is for the Court to identify and prioritise the primary consideration appropriate to the youth in question having regard to all the circumstances including those of the offence. This will then set the parameters for the second stage of the inquiry, which is to select the appropriate order that would best meet those considerations and the priority that the judge has placed upon the relevant ones.

21  The dominant consideration for youthful offenders will generally be rehabilitation (Public Prosecutor v Mok Ping Wuen Maurice [1998] 3 SLR(R) 439 at [21] and PP v Boaz Koh”) at [29]). However, the focus on rehabilitation can be diminished or even eclipsed by such considerations as deterrence or retribution where the circumstances warrant, and broadly speaking, this happens in cases where (a) the offence is serious, (b) the harm caused is severe, (c) the offender is hardened and recalcitrant, or (d) the conditions do not exist to make rehabilitative sentencing options such as probation or reformative training viable (PP v Boaz Koh at [30]).

22 More recently, the Youth Courts have come more firmly to the view that the focus must be on rehabilitation of the children or young persons dealt with and found guilty by the Youth Courts (Public Prosecutor v XRU [2025] SGYC 6 at [33]).

23 Finally, I was also guided by the statutory principle set out in section 4(b) of the CYPA which states that in all matters relating to the administration or application of the Act, the welfare and best interests of the child or young person must be the first and paramount consideration.

24 The Youth had committed the offences when he was around 16 plus years to 17 years of age. He was about 17 years and 9 months of age at the time the Orders were passed.

25 Although I noted the Youth’s history of conflict with the law ⁴ , I considered that given his age, he still has potential for rehabilitation. I did not think that the primacy of rehabilitation as the dominant consideration was diminished or eclipsed. The focus is therefore still on his rehabilitation. The next step is to then ascertain the appropriate orders to be passed for the Youth.

26 The PO had assessed the Youth’s risk of re-offending to be high, and also listed down several risk factors in the PSR, including the following ⁵ :

27 On a more positive note, the PO had also stated that, albeit recent, the Youth’s regular attendance and positive conduct in school since January 2026 suggested some capacity for self-discipline when motivated ⁶ .

28  Finally, the PO had also stated in the PSR that a period of hostel probation was considered. However, in view of the Youth’s risk factors, a closed and structured environment is assessed necessary for his effective rehabilitation ⁷ .

29 As stated at [13] above, when subsequently invited by the Court, the PO provided the Updated Recommendations, including a condition for the Youth to reside in SBHL for a period of 12 months.

30 In considering the appropriate dispositional orders for the Youth, I was firstly guided by the following observation of the High Court in A Karthik v Public Prosecutor [2018] SGHC 202 at [79]:

“79…it makes good sense for the court to give careful consideration to the reports prepared by probation officers. It is the probation officer who is usually best apprised of the offender’s circumstances and, hence, of his suitability for the probation regime. Therefore, the court should ordinarily be slow to depart from the recommendations of a probation officer unless: (a) it is clear that the circumstances upon which the probation officer’s recommendations were based were factually incorrect or have since changed materially; or (b) there was no proper basis for the probation officer’s recommendations.”

31 At the same time, I was also guided by the following observation of the High Court in WOP v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGHCF 31 at [9]:

“9…The probation report remains the first and a major factor in a trial judge’s consideration, but the judge will also need to consider all other relevant factors to see if any of them may operate to justify a different conclusion….”

32 In the present case, I had taken into account the multiple risk factors (as assessed by the PO) relating to the Youth (as set out at [26] above), and did not minimise their seriousness or severity. There is nothing before me to suggest that the PO’s assessment of these risk factors was incorrect, unjustified and/or without proper basis.

33 At the same time, I did consider whether more weight could have been placed on the strengths and protective factors, in particular, the Youth’s regular attendance, good academic performance and excellent overall conduct in ITE College West from January 2026 to present ⁸ , especially when compared to his irregular attendance, poor overall conduct and poor academic performance in secondary school from January 2021 to December 2025 ⁹ .

34 In determining what dispositional orders would be in the welfare and best interests of the Youth, the question was essentially this: would placing the Youth in a JRC for 18 months (or any other period of time) be in the Youth’s best interests and welfare, bearing in mind that the focus is still on his rehabilitation, or whether other types of orders may serve the same purpose.

35 While I still gave due weight and careful consideration to the PO’s assessment in the PSR, I decided to respectfully depart from the PO’s Recommendation. At the end of the day, I was not convinced that it was in the best interests and welfare of the Youth for him to reside in a JRC (which is a closed environment) for a period of 18 months.

36 At the time of the hearing on 28 July 2026, the Youth would have undergone about six months of Higher Nitec studies in Automotive Engineering in ITE College West. Based on the information provided by the school as set out in the PSR, he appears to be doing well. As mentioned at [27] above, the PO had assessed that the Youth’s regular attendance and positive conduct in school since January 2026 suggested some capacity for self-discipline when motivated.

37 Given the Youth’s positive performance in ITE College West thus far, it can be inferred that his current course of studies has been, and likely is still, serving as a motivating factor for him to improve and better himself. In this regard, if he were to be ordered to reside in SBH under a JRC order as per the PO’s Recommendation, his studies in Automotive Engineering in ITE College West would be disrupted significantly, if not curtailed ¹⁰ . In my view, this would be a major set-back and considerable blow to the Youth’s motivation, and may even negate the improvements in his behaviour and attitude since January 2026. I was unable to see how this would be in his best interests and welfare.

38 I was of the view that there was still room for the Youth to undergo rehabilitation in the community under a probation order. However, having considered, I concluded that it would be in the Youth’s best interest and welfare to be placed on probation, with a period of hostel residence in SBHL as part of the requirements of the probation order, instead of allowing him to be placed on probation at home from the onset. I explain.

39 In PP v GCB (A Minor) [2019] SGYC 1 (“PP v GCB”), the Court stated at [24] that the level of support the family is able to provide is an important consideration because probationary supervision takes place substantially in the offender’s natural setting, and that for probation to be viable, there must be a workable level of support and supervision at home. In PP v GFC [2022] SGYC 2, the Court noted at [27] that good family support and supervision is vital if a youth is to be placed on probation, and this is especially needed if the youth has significant risk factors. I agreed with these statements, and also took the view that similar considerations (i.e. level of family support and supervision) can apply when considering whether a period of hostel residence (to provide some structure and discipline) should be ordered as part of a probation order.

40 In the present case, while I acknowledged the Youth’s progress since January 2026 and had considered that there is still room for him to be rehabilitated in the community, I could not simply disregard the multiple risk factors assessed by the PO (at [26] above) which would have been present for a large part of his teenage and secondary school years. The presence of these multiple risk factors raised considerable doubts as to whether and to what extent the Youth’s parents had provided, and can provide, the necessary support, supervision and discipline as well as set and enforce appropriate boundaries for the Youth that would be crucial to effective rehabilitation in the community, at least at this point in time.

41 During the hearing on 28 July 2026, in seeking for the Youth to be allowed to stay at home during probation, his parents challenged any suggestion of “incomplete” parenting or that they cannot take care of him. While their desire for the Youth to remain at home on probation is understandable, I did not have much confidence in their present ability or capacity to consistently provide sufficient support, discipline and structure at home for probation at home to be considered appropriate from the onset. In this regard, I took into account the following assessment by the PO (which I found no reason to disagree with) ¹¹ :

42 I should emphasise that just because rehabilitation retains primacy as the dominant consideration does not necessarily mean that the least intrusive or severe option would be ordered, if it is not in the Youth’s welfare and best interests. I found the following comments by the Court in PP v GCB helpful:

“3 The Youth Court operates with the welfare and best interests of the juvenile as its first and paramount consideration. Keenly aware that the offenders before the court are still very young and are capable of being moulded, the court’s primary concern is not that of calibrating and meting out punishment proportionate to the offence. Neither is deterrence a foremost consideration, especially general deterrence. Instead, the court focuses primarily on finding rehabilitative measures and solutions that are most workable for the juvenile, given the fact and circumstances of the case.

4 Such an approach cannot mean that a less intrusive or less severe option such as probation is always chosen, as though every juvenile would be entitled to it by virtue of his youthfulness. The court may generally prefer a parsimonious approach, favouring less intrusive and less severe options wherever possible. But it has ultimately to ensure that the order chosen would be one that best serves the interests of the young offender before it. More rigorous orders will have to be imposed where they are needed.”

43 Having considered, I decided that placing the Youth on probation, with 12 months residence in a hostel (in this case, SBHL) would serve the best interests and welfare of the Youth. This would allow him to undergo rehabilitation in the community and continue his studies in ITE College West, while at the same time benefitting from some structure and learn discipline and responsibility during the period of hostel residence in SBHL, which is a semi-open institution where residents will be allowed to go out during the day to attend school in the community and thereafter return to the hostel after school ¹² . To this end, I considered that 12 months would be an appropriate length of time for him to reside in SBHL before serving the remaining period of probation at home. During this period, his parents would also have the time and opportunity to work on and improve on their parenting skills so that they would be in a better and stronger position to exercise effective parental supervision.

44 For completeness, I also decided to pass the Detention Order for the Youth to serve 2 weeks of detention in SBH before being placed on probation. Given his history of conflict with the law, the purpose of the Detention Order is to impress upon him the potential consequences of offending (including being placed in a closed institution) to deter him from further offending.

45 In conclusion, I was of the view that the Orders would be in best interests and welfare of the Youth and therefore so ordered (including the Probation Order with the Hostel Order).

46 On 14 August 2026, following an application by ALC for a stay of execution (which the Prosecution did not object to), I granted a stay of the Probation Order (with the Hostel Order) and bail pending appeal. The Youth is currently on bail pending appeal.