PRASANTH S/O MOGAN v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

[2023] SGHC 207 High Court (General Division) 2 August 2023 HC/MA 9152/2022/01

6 cases cited

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

“I dismissed the appeal against sentence.”

Source: [2023] SGHC 207, High Court (General Division), decided 2 August 2023. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	2 August 2023
Judge	Vincent Hoong
Charges / claim	Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
Outcome	Appeal dismissed
Counsel	Attorney-General's Chambers, H C Law Practice, Derek Ee, Muhammed Riyach bin Hussain Omar

Source: [2023] SGHC 207, High Court (General Division), decided 2 August 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Young offenders

Practice Areas

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing

Judges (1)

Vincent Hoong Delivered

Counsel (4)

Attorney-General's Chambers Firm H C Law Practice Firm

Derek Ee Counsel for the respondent

Muhammed Riyach bin Hussain Omar Counsel for the appellant

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Respondent

Prasanth s/o Mogan Appellant

Case Significance

Prasanth s/o Mogan v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGHC 207 is a grounds of decision of Vincent Hoong J in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 2 August 2023 in Magistrate's Appeal No 9152 of 2022. The appellant, Prasanth s/o Mogan, was 19 at the time of the offences committed on 2 March 2021 against a 17-year-old male victim, and had pleaded guilty in the District Court to rioting with a deadly weapon under s 148 of the Penal Code and voyeurism under s 377BB(4), with a criminal intimidation charge under s 506 taken into consideration. The District Judge sentenced him to reformative training with a minimum detention period of 12 months, and he appealed seeking probation. Vincent Hoong J dismissed the appeal.

Summary

Prasanth s/o Mogan, aged 19 at the time of the offences, pleaded guilty to rioting with a deadly weapon under s 148 of the Penal Code and voyeurism under s 377BB(4), and was sentenced to reformative training with a minimum 12-month detention. He appealed seeking probation, but the High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that reformative training most appropriately addressed rehabilitation, deterrence and retribution and that the parity principle did not require probation.

What did the court decide in Prasanth s/o Mogan v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGHC 207?

Vincent Hoong J dismissed the appellant's appeal on 2 August 2023. Prasanth s/o Mogan, aged 19 at the time of the offences, had sought probation instead of the reformative training with a minimum 12-month detention period imposed by the District Judge.

What offences was Prasanth s/o Mogan sentenced for in [2023] SGHC 207?

He pleaded guilty to rioting with a deadly weapon under s 148 of the Penal Code and voyeurism under s 377BB(4), with a criminal intimidation charge under s 506 taken into consideration. The offences were committed on 2 March 2021 against a 17-year-old male victim.