Man conducts own appeal against corrective training sentence

SINGAPORE — Claiming that his lawyer pulled out from representing him at the last minute, a former yoghurt store worker – who had earlier been sentenced to six years’ corrective training and fined S$2,000 for cheating and forgery, among other offences — today (Nov 19) put up a robust appeal against the sentence, impressing the judge with his grasp of the law.

Remarking that the offender was “obviously someone with the brains”, Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin said: “Based on the way you argue, you are someone who can really think. I hope you can better use that brain matter in lawful pursuits.”

Teo Ziqi, 32, told the judge that he spent his two years in remand reading law books and looking up past cases. Judgment was reserved.

He argued that his cheating offences did not warrant corrective training — a harsher form of prison term as the offender is unlikely to be given early release for factors such as good behaviour.

Citing various sections of the Criminal Procedure Code to support his arguments during his hearing at the High Court, Teo said corrective training could be imposed on a person convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more, and has had at least two past convictions with jail terms of at least two years since reaching the age of 16. However, Teo claimed the situation did not apply in his case.

Prior to his latest offence in 2012, Teo had been convicted of cheating offences in 2002, 2003 and 2010. However, Teo argued that his 2010 conviction was the only one with a minimum jail term of two years.

He also noted that the minimum penalty for his 2003 offence had been increased in 2007, but stood at one year at the time he was convicted.

When the prosecution pointed out that Teo had also been charged with impersonating a public servant in 2003 — an offence that counted towards the criteria for corrective training — he countered that this was a “small offence” for which he was only fined, and thus should not be given too much weight, a point which Justice Chao agreed with.

Arguing that his offences were not severe enough to deserve the harsh punishment, Teo added that a corrective training report had stated that his risk of re-offending was “low to moderate”.

While expressing remorse over his crimes, Teo said the sentence was “too lengthy for (him) to change”.

“I will be separated from society for eight years. What skills can I gain in prison? I really think I deserve a second chance,” said Teo.

He pleaded for a term without corrective training, so he could “integrate back to society and reunite with my family as soon as possible”.

In reserving judgment, Justice Chao said he needed more time “to study the district judge’s decision more carefully”, including the possibility of the latter overlooking that the minimum penalty for one of Teo’s prior charges had been amended after his conviction.