Ow Gan Wee v Public Prosecutor

Ow Gan Wee pleaded guilty in the District Court to two theft charges under s 379 of the Penal Code and one charge of drug possession under s 8(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973. The offences were committed between November 2021 and June 2022. The District Judge sentenced him to eight years' preventive detention, with grounds in Public Prosecutor v Ow Gan Wee [2023] SGDC 16.

He appealed against sentence in Magistrate's Appeal No 9256 of 2022, acting in person, and asked for a term of imprisonment instead. He argued that his crimes were not serious, that the stolen items were of low value and some cash had been handed back to the victim, that the Prosecution was too quick to assume he would reoffend, and that the District Judge had given too little weight to his psychiatric conditions, his claimed attempt to surrender to the police, the financial hardship of a long term, and his renunciation of gang ties on 20 September 2022.

1. Whether the technical requirements for corrective training and preventive detention were met.
2. Whether it was expedient to impose preventive detention with a view to reformation and the prevention of crime.
3. Whether the appellant's mitigating factors made preventive detention unduly disproportionate.

The court applied s 304(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 and the framework in Sim Yeow Kee v Public Prosecutor [2016] 5 SLR 936, accepting that it applies to preventive detention. It agreed that the technical requirements for both corrective training and preventive detention were satisfied.

On expediency, the court accepted that the likely sentence for the drug charge was four years' imprisonment and found that the thefts would attract two years, given that this was his sixth conviction for that type of offence. His eligibility for the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme was neutral. The preventive detention term matched what regular imprisonment would have been and sat at the lower end of the available range.

On mitigation, the court accepted that the offences were not the most serious and involved low-value items, but stressed his repeated offending, often within months of release, and the need to protect the public. A bare assertion of psychiatric illness was not mitigating, no causal link was shown, and a 2013 report found only drug dependence. There was no evidence he had meant to surrender. Recovered cash was not mitigating because it was not returned voluntarily. Gang renunciation was commendable but unconnected with the offences, and financial hardship was not mitigating without exceptional circumstances. The court noted that he had been given probation, reformative training, two stints of corrective training and several prison terms, and that his suitability report showed a lack of remorse.

The High Court dismissed the appeal against sentence, holding that the term of eight years' preventive detention imposed by the District Judge was not manifestly excessive.