Range of sentencing options to be more closely considered by AGC

SINGAPORE — The Public Prosecutor will take a new approach in recommending penalties for offences, focusing more on the full range of sentencing options available instead of how judges punished offenders in past cases, Attorney-General Lucien Wong said on Monday (Jan 8).

“I understand the public disquiet and frustration when egregious conduct is not, to the public’s mind, adequately punished,” said Mr Wong, who was speaking at the Opening of Legal Year 2018, held at the Supreme Court.

“We will move towards placing more weight on sentencing principles than precedents when deriving the sentencing positions which we submit to the Court. The key focus is to anchor our sentencing positions based on the level of culpability and harm, which is then adjusted for any aggravating and mitigating factors.”

Mr Wong said his officers will “work towards implementing this (approach) through the course of the year”.

His chambers will continue to maintain public trust at a time when misinformation can easily proliferate, he added.

Typically, the prosecution and defence base their sentencing arguments on how judges ruled in similar cases in the past. But the apex court has, in some recent judgments setting out new sentencing guidelines for certain offences, noted that the full range of sentences had not been utilised.

Criminal lawyers said they welcomed Mr Wong’s comments, but stressed that both sentencing principles and precedents need to go hand in hand when arriving at sentencing positions.

Mr Amolat Singh said that the move to place more weight on principles would make for a “better foundation on which sentences are calibrated”.

The A-G’s remarks allow for a “scientific approach” to sentencing, which Mr Amolat said would help all parties — including the offender — “better rationalise and understand” sentence recommendations.

Going forward, Ms Tania Chin said there would be a need for “increased collaboration” between the defence and prosecution to ensure consistency in sentencing.

Mr Singh added: “Perhaps the A-G’s clarion call should also (resonate) with the defence bar…to adopt similar approaches when submitting sentencing guidelines.”

Addressing around 500 members of the legal fraternity on Monday, Mr Wong also explained why the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had taken the step of explaining some of its charging or sentencing decisions – such as in the case of Annie Ee, a waitress who died after being tortured for eight months by her landlords.

The AGC had explained it did not pursue murder charges against the perpetrators, Pua Hak Chuan and Tan Hui Zhen, because the evidence could not support the charge as the cause of Ee’s death, acute fat embolism, was an unusual occurrence that would not have ordinarily resulted from the injuries the couple inflicted.

Mr Wong said: “We are making the effort to share our institutional philosophy with a wider audience not because we hope everyone will agree with every decision that we make. Decisions that are taken in the wider public interest are not necessarily synonymous with decisions that are popularly received.”

He added: “Rather, we want the public to better understand the complex nature of the judgment calls that we have to make – and we make them each day – and the broader policy imperatives that inform our decisions.”

The Public Prosecutor “will not take short-term views, or allow a vocal minority to influence our actions”, said Mr Wong.

This was also addressed by Law Minister K Shanmugam in December, after Pua and Tan were sentenced. There were petitions online calling for harsher punishments against the pair before the judge ruled on their sentences.

Separately on Monday, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon announced the appointment of lawyer Kuah Boon Theng as Senior Counsel.

Ms Kuah, a medical law and ethics lawyer, joins 62 other Senior Counsel — an accolade given to outstanding lawyers who possess extensive knowledge of the law and have the highest professional standing.