Public Prosecutor v ZH Builders Pte. Ltd.

ZH Builders Pte Ltd was the builder and 457 Balestier Pte Ltd the developer of a project to add a floor and a rear extension to an existing two-storey shophouse building on Balestier Road, whose front part was to house shops and restaurants open to the public. Structural plans for new pad footings, the foundations of new columns supporting the front building, were disapproved on 8 April 2021 as possibly unsafe. Revised plans were approved on 27 April 2021.

Between 1 April 2021 and 26 April 2021, on 457 Balestier's instructions given on or about 25 March 2021, ZH Builders cast 12 pad footings based on the disapproved plans, knowing the revised plans had not been approved. It then tried to hide them by bending back the rebars and covering them with soil, and 457 Balestier told the site supervisor to post-date his inspection forms. Between 28 April 2021 and 4 May 2021 ZH Builders also knowingly cast 4 other footings that departed from the approved plans, using a weaker grade of concrete. ZH Builders pleaded guilty to charges under ss 20(1)(a) and 11(1)(a)(iii) of the Building Control Act, and 457 Balestier to one charge under s 20(1)(a). A District Judge in the Magistrate's Court fined ZH Builders $38,000 and $28,000 and fined 457 Balestier $38,000. The Prosecution appealed in HC/MA 9195/2024/01 and HC/MA 9198/2024/01, and a Young Independent Counsel was appointed to address the sentencing framework.

1. Whether a single sentencing framework adapted from the Workplace Safety and Health Act could apply to corporate offenders under ss 11(1)(a) and 20(1)(a) of the Building Control Act
2. Whether the District Judge erred in assessing the companies' culpability as medium and the harm as low
3. What fines should be imposed

The court held that one framework could serve both offences, since they carry the same maximum fine of $200,000 for companies and share a common core of carrying out unapproved building works. It could be adapted from the workplace safety framework because Parliament intended the penalties to align and both statutes aim at safety in construction. The court endorsed the District Judge's harm and culpability matrix, listed the relevant factors, and noted that a guilty plea is now dealt with as a separate final step under the Sentencing Advisory Panel's guidelines.

Culpability was high. The non-compliance was deliberate and was concealed, and 457 Balestier was more culpable still because it directed the works, pressed for their completion and arranged the post-dated inspection forms. The court rejected the claim that the companies acted out of compassion for idle workers and drew the irresistible inference that they acted to save costs, including by using cheaper concrete.

Harm was at least medium, not low. The footings were key structural elements of a building meant for public use; failure could cause collapse, serious injury or death, and no harm resulted only because a whistle-blower raised the matter early. Rectifying the works was not mitigation, because the companies had no real choice. Starting points of $100,000 for ZH Builders and $120,000 for 457 Balestier were reduced for the early guilty pleas to the fines imposed.

The High Court allowed the Prosecution's appeals and set aside the sentences. It imposed a fine of $70,000 for each of ZH Builders' two charges and a fine of $90,000 on 457 Balestier, and allowed the balance of the fines to be paid in four equal monthly instalments, the first on or before 26 August 2025.