Prasanth s/o Mogan v Public Prosecutor

Prasanth s/o Mogan was 19 years old when he committed the offences. In the District Court he pleaded guilty to rioting with a deadly weapon under s 148 of the Penal Code and to voyeurism under s 377BB(4), and agreed to a criminal intimidation charge under s 506 being taken into consideration. The District Judge sentenced him to reformative training (RT) with a minimum detention period of 12 months. He appealed against that sentence in Magistrate's Appeal No 9152 of 2022, asking for probation instead.

The undisputed facts were that the appellant and his girlfriend's brothers had a running dispute with a 17-year-old victim over his dealings with Nithiya, the victim's former girlfriend. On 1 March 2021 the appellant told a co-accused to get the victim's location, and that co-accused arranged to meet the victim at the rooftop of a multi-storey carpark in Woodlands. Shortly after midnight the group arrived and beat the victim. The appellant drew a pocket-knife, threatened him and slashed his right forearm. The group then stripped the victim, and the appellant filmed him naked on his handphone, told him to dance, made him kiss his shoe, and threatened to put the video on social media if he went to the police. The victim suffered left maxillary sinus and orbital fractures and forearm lacerations.

The Probation Report found the appellant suitable for probation, and the RT Report found him suitable for RT at Level 2 intensity. The Prosecution asked for RT; the defence asked for probation.

1. Whether the District Judge correctly identified deterrence and retribution, alongside rehabilitation, as relevant sentencing considerations for this young offender.
2. Whether reformative training, rather than probation, was the appropriate sentence in light of those considerations.
3. Whether the principle of parity required probation because two co-accused persons had received probation.

On the first issue, the court applied the two-stage framework for young offenders from Public Prosecutor v Koh Wen Jie Boaz [2016] 1 SLR 334. The appellant challenged only retribution, while accepting some deterrence was needed, which the court thought odd because the District Judge had relied on the same factors for both. Those factors could justify both. The offences were serious: rioting with a deadly weapon is the most aggravated unlawful assembly offence, and voyeurism carries real harm, as noted in Nicholas Tan Siew Chye v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGHC 35. The appellant was the most culpable member of the group: he organised the attack, alone carried and used a weapon, alone filmed the video out of malice, and made the threat to leak it. His claim that others had urged him to film had no support in the Statement of Facts. The harm was serious, including facial fractures and a significant invasion of privacy and bodily integrity. Being a first offender did not remove the need for deterrence and retribution.

On the second issue, the court agreed that probation has only minimal deterrent and retributive effect and would not meet the substantial need for both here. The appellant's claim of remorse was rejected: both pre-sentencing reports showed he had minimised his role and blamed his friends and the victim, describing the cut as a "small slash". RT is itself rehabilitative and, following Public Prosecutor v Mohammad Al-Ansari bin Basri [2008] 1 SLR(R) 449, the preferred option where rehabilitation is primary but some deterrence and retribution are required. Its structured setting also suited the appellant, who had breached his time restriction, missed appointments with his Probation Officer, and offended in breach of his father's curfew.

On parity, differences in responsibility or circumstances justify different sentences among co-accused persons. The appellant faced the more serious s 148 charge rather than s 147, had an additional voyeurism conviction and a charge taken into consideration, and played a far more central role, so a heavier sentence was consistent with parity.

The High Court dismissed the appeal against sentence. The sentence of reformative training with a minimum detention period of 12 months imposed by the District Judge was upheld.