GFN v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Facts

GFN, a youth who was nearly 17 at the time of the appeal, pleaded guilty to four charges, with six other charges taken into consideration. The offences he admitted included threatening to kill his 12-year-old sister with a knife, hurting her by strangulation and threatening a public servant, all on 6 November 2022, and causing hurt to his mother on 20 October 2021. After he was assessed as unsuitable for probation, a District Judge on 7 March 2023 ordered him detained in a Juvenile Rehabilitation Centre (JRC) for 24 months.

In Youth Court Appeal No 3 of 2023/01 he did not challenge the detention order itself but argued that its length was excessive. His counsel asked the High Court to call for supplementary probation and psychiatric reports and then to consider a shorter term.

Issues

1. Whether the probation report was flawed because its author went on maternity leave midway, and because its summary page gave no reasons for the recommendation.
2. Whether the Institute of Mental Health psychiatrist's report was flawed for giving opinions without reasons.
3. Whether fresh reports should be called, given incidents after the appellant was released on bail.

Holding

The High Court dismissed the appeal, leaving the 24-month JRC detention term in place.

Reasoning

A change of officer midway was not itself evidence of a flaw; the signing officer takes responsibility for the report, which is flawed only if shown to be inaccurate. A typing error giving 2003 as the year the appellant first drank alcohol (he was born in 2006) did not matter, since on any reading he drank underage. The recommendation's basis appeared from the report as a whole, which weighed his risk and protective factors drawn from his history, family, schooling, substance use and other matters. The court found the report comprehensive.

The psychiatrist, Dr Tan Da-Vid, had explained what he relied on, including interviews with the appellant, his father and a school head of department and the reports of other officers. The court saw nothing wrong with his method or how the report was written.

The father said his son had changed after a few weeks in the JRC, but the appellant was said to have reoffended on 15 July and 17 July 2023 while on bail. The court accepted PP v Low Ji Qing [2019] 5 SLR 769 that fresh charges should not affect sentence for earlier convictions, but noted that case did not concern probation. A new report would need to look into those incidents, which could cut against the appellant. In any event, the offences alone justified 24 months, and a new report might more likely lead to a longer term.

From the judgment