Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
19 and 20 Judgement and Sentence

19 and 20 Judgement and Sentence



|Views: 1,294|Likes:
Published by api-3803117

More info:

Published by: api-3803117 on Oct 17, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





19 \u2013 20 Judgement and Sentence
follow all the latest sentencing decisions!!!!! Keep track of latest decisions coming
Sentencing Jurisdiction
\u2022no jurisdictional limits for the HC
\u2022Note distinction between \u2018trial\u2019 jurisdiction (s 9(c) CPC) and sentencing powers (s 11 CPC)
for DC and MC
District Courts - trial jurisdiction:
- General jurisdiction: any offence punishable with impt which does not exceed 10
yrs or with fine only \u2013 CPC, s 7(1); also see CPC, s 9(c)(i).

- Special (or enhanced) jurisdiction: any offence other than one punishable with
death if PP applies for such offence to be tried in district court and accused
consents - CPC, s 7(2).

\u2013\u2022 Offences under the Penal Code: any offence listed to be triable in a district court
in the 8th Column of Schedule A of the CPC \u2013 s 9(a). SeeRamanathan
Yogendran v PP [1995] 2 SLR 563.- Interprets s9(a)
\u2013 \u2022 Offences under other laws (other than PC) \u2013 see statute itself: if specifically
empowered to try under the law \u2013 CPC, s 9(b).
\ue000If the law is silent, then the district court can try an offence
punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 10 years. (go back
to general jurisdiction)
\ue000MOA, Prevention of Corruption Act
District Courts - sentencing jurisdiction:
\u2013 \u2022 Impt up to 7 years per charge: CPC, s 11(3)(a)
\u2013 \u2022 Impt up to 10 years per charge \u201cby reason of any previous conviction or
antecedents\u201d: CPC, s 11(3) proviso.
\ue000See PP v Pius Louis Gilbert v PP [2003] 3 SLR 418 - the proviso

does not allow the district court to impose a sentence beyond the
maximum limit prescribed for the offence. \u2013 offence under 325
here, max 7, distict gave 6 yrsm, on appeal enhanced to 10 yrs by
HC \u2013 it went beyond 7 yr punishment for offene and CA held tt
this was wrong

\u2013 \u2022 Aggregate impt at one trial cannot exceed14 years: CPC, s 17 proviso
\u2013 \u2022 Fine of up to $10,000 per charge: CPC, s 11(3)(b)
\u2013 \u2022 Caning up to 12 strokes per charge: CPC, s 11(3)(c).
\u2013 Not to exceed 24 strokes for an adult offender and 10 strokes for a \u201cyouthful

offender\u201d \u2013 CPC, s 230.
\u2013 General provn overridden if -
\ue000\u2022 If a written law empowers a District Court to award full
punishment which exceeds above, the District Court can award
full punishment authorised by the law: CPC, section 11(7).
\ue000Eg MDA \u2013 impt of 20 yrs, for eg
\u2013 \u2022 Any lawful combination of sentences it is authorised by law to pass: CPC, s
11(3)(d), for example, impt and fine, impt and caning.
\u2013 Note: cannot have a combination of imprisonment, fine and caning
-If written law empowers District Court to award full punishment which exceeds
above, follow the written law\u2019s enhanced sentencing powers: s 11(7) CPC, eg.
\u2013 \u2022 Reformative training: CPC, s 11(3)(e) and s 13 (one term for all charges).(for

those under 21)
\u2013 \u2022 Corrective training: CPC, s 12(1) (1 term for all charges) (for the bad hats)
\u2013 \u2022 Preventive detention: CPC s 12(2) (1 term for all charges).
\u2013 \u2022 Probation, conditional discharge, absolute discharge: see Probation of Offenders

Act (Cap 252).
\u2013 \u2022 Forfeiture, disqualification etc
Magistrate\u2019s Court (trial jurisdiction):
\u2013 \u2022 Any offence punishable with impt of not more than 3 yrs or with fine only \u2013

CPC, s 8(1)(a); also see s 9(c)(ii).
\u2013 \u2022 Any offence listed in the 8th Column of Schedule A, CPC \u2013 s 9(a).
\u2013 \u2022 Any offence under any law it is specifically empowered to try \u2013 CPC, s 9(b).
\u2013 \u2022 PP may give written authorisation to a Magistrate\u2019s Court to try a District Court

case \u2013 CPC, s 10 {But no enlargement of sentencing powers}.
Magistrate\u2019s Court - sentencing jurisdiction:
\u2013 \u2022 Impt of not more than 2 years per charge: CPC, s 11(5)(a).
\u2013 \u2022 Aggregate impt \u2013 ie multiple charges - at one trial cannot exceed 4 years: CPC, s

17 proviso.
\u2013 \u2022 Fine not exceeding $2,000 per charge: CPC, s 11(5)(b).
\u2013 \u2022 Caning up to 6 strokes per charge: CPC, s 11(5)(c).
\u2013 \u2022 Any lawful combination of sentence it is authorised to pass: CPC, s 11(5)(d).
\u2013 \u2022 May award full punishment authorised by law \u201cby reason of any previous

conviction and antecedents\u201d: CPC, s 11(5) proviso.

\u2013 \u2022 If written law empowers Magistrate Court to award full punishment which
exceeds above, the Magistrate\u2019s Court may award the full punishment authorised
by that law: CPC, s 11(7), e.g.. Betting Act, CGHA etc.

\u2013 \u2022 Cannot order reformative training but can call for RTC report and commit
accused in custody for sentence to a District Court: CPC, s 13(2) & (5).
\u2013 \u2022 Probation, conditional discharge, absolute discharge, forfeiture, disqualification
\u2022Jurisdiction to try offences listed in Schedule A 8th column CPC - s 9(a) CPC & where
specifically empowered under written law - s 9(b) CPC
\u2022Rape cases can be tried in Sub Courts. The appropriate sentence should be the benchmark
rather than the Court subject to DC limits. (See Soh Lip Yong [1999] 4 SLR 281)
\u2022High Court. Section 15(2) of the SCJA: states that the HC may pass any sentence allowed by
District Court and Magistrate Court:
Subordinate Court. Section 11(3) & (7) of the CPC.

DC can impose imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years; fine not exceeding $10,000; caning up to 12 strokes; or any lawful sentence combining any of the sentences which it is authorised by law to pass.


Where it appears that by reason of previous convictions/antecedents, punishment in excess of the above should be warded, the DC can sentence that accused to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years; and it shall then record its reason for doing so. (s 11(3) of CPC)


Where jurisdiction is given to DC to award punishment for any offence in excess of the powers in s 11, the DC and MC can award full punishment authorised by that law, under s 11(7) CPC.

PP can give written authorisation for MC to try DC case, pursuant to S 10 CPC. Note: no
enlargement of sentencing powers conferred by s 11(5).
Magistrate Court. Section 11(5) of the CPC.
\u2022Maximum aggregate punishment of imprisonment: 14 years (DC) and 4 years (MC)

MC can impose imprisonment not more than 2 yrs, fine not more than $2000; caning up to 6 strokes; any lawful sentence combining any of the sentences it is authorised by law to pass. S11(5) CPC.


Where appears tt due to accused\u2019s prev convictions, punishment in excess of tt prescribed by s11.5 shld be awarded, magis court can award full punishment prescribed by law for offence of which accused convicted \u2013 then record reasons \u2013 s11.5


Pursuant to S 17 CPC, aggregate punishment of imprisonment which can be imposed by a DC or by a MC in a case which it has tired is limited to \u2018twice the amount of punishment\u2019 which that court \u2018in the exercise of its ordinary jurisdiction is competent to inflict. \u2018

\u2022Aggregate punishment of imprisonment: Section 17 of the CPC

Sentence in case of conviction for several offences at one trial.
17. When a person is convicted at one trial of any two or more distinct offences the court may
sentence him for such offences to the several punishments prescribed therefor which such
court is competent to inflict; such punishments when consisting of imprisonment to commence
the one after the expiration of the other in such order as the court directs or to run concurrently
if the court so directs, but it shall not be necessary for the court, by reason only of the
aggregate punishment for the several offences being in excess of the punishment which it is
competent to inflict on conviction of one single offence, to send the offender for trial before a
higher court:

Provided that if the case is tried by a District Court or Magistrate\u2019s Court the aggregate
punishment of imprisonment shall not exceed twice the amount of punishment, which such
Court in the exercise of its ordinary jurisdiction is competent to inflict. (DC = 2x 7 = 14 yrs
and MC = 2 x 2 = 4 years)

Enlargement of powers of Magistrate\u2019s Court
10. When under section 9 an offence is triable by a District Court but not by a Magistrate\u2019s
Court the Public Prosecutor may, nevertheless, if he considers it desirable, by writing under his
hand, authorise a Magistrate\u2019s Court in any particular case to try the offence, but that
authorisation shall not enlarge the powers conferred on the Magistrate\u2019s Court by section 11


Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
urundil liked this
yarhamlbs liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->