Jul 1, 2007

A. Brief facts of the case

Dickson Tan Yong Wen was charged on 8 February 2007 for four counts under section 33(2)(a) read with section 33(1)(b) and section 33(3)(a)(i) of the Moneylenders Act (abetting an unlicensed moneylender to harass a debtor). Tan pleaded guilty to two of the four charges and was convicted and sentenced on 28 February 2007. The other two charges were taken into consideration for purpose of sentencing.

2 For the two charges which the defendant had pleaded guilty to, the presiding judge’s sentence was within the legal range and sentencing power. These sentences were:

i. 3 months' imprisonment and 2 strokes of the cane (for one of the charges); and ii. 6 months' imprisonment and 3 strokes of the cane (for the other charge).

These sentences were ordered to run consecutively with effect from 6 February 2007.

iii. Total: 9 months and 5 strokes.

B. What went wrong?

3. As stated above, it is non-contentious that the sentence which was meted out by the presiding judge was within the legal range and sentencing power. It was a correct judicial decision.

4. Unfortunately, when the warrant of commitment was prepared by the Court Officer (i.e. court clerk who assisted the judge with the administrative aspects of the case), the Court Officer erroneously reflected on the warrant of commitment an additional 3 strokes to one of the charges. With this error, the sentence became as follows:

i. 3 months' imprisonment and 2 strokes of the cane (for one of the charges); and ii. 6 months' imprisonment and 6 strokes of the cane (for the other charge).

5. The caning was then carried out on 29 March 2007 by the Prisons authority based on the warrant of commitment, i.e. 8 strokes of the cane. The Prisons officers observed all procedures relating to the administration of the caning, including verifying with the prisoner that the number of strokes of caning as specified in the warrant of commitment was correct.

On 1 March 2007 during Dickson Tan Yong Wen’s admission process to prison, he also did not raise any objection on the number of strokes of caning he had been sentenced to when he was interviewed by a prison officer.

On 29 March 2007, prior to the caning, Tan acknowledged on the Inmate's Events Sheet that the number of strokes, i.e. 8 strokes, to be meted out to him was correct. Again just before he was caned, Tan also confirmed to the prison officers and the Medical Officer who were present that the number of strokes he would be receiving was correct, and did not raise any objection.

6. It was understood from the pertinent Court Officer that a family member of Tan called on 2 April 2007, after the caning was administered, to check on details of the sentence with reference to the number of strokes of the cane. Tan qualified for release under Home Detention and was accordingly released on 17 May by the Prison authority to complete his sentence under Home Detention till 7 Aug 2007.

7. This incident was therefore a regrettable error on the part of a Court Officer that led to the extra three strokes of caning being imposed on Tan. By way of update, the Court Officer in question has since resigned and left the Subordinate Courts as a result of the incident.

C. How are we tightening this to ensure that a similar mistake does not occur?

8. The Subordinate Courts has since taken various steps to tighten the processes. These efforts include checklists for Court Officers in preparing warrants of commitment and layers of additional checks for warrants of commitment.

D Going forward

9. The Government regrets the error and remains ready and willing to settle the matter. The Government has also offered to refer the case to mediation. In negotiations so far, Tan's settlement sum has escalated from an initial amount of $150,000 to $3m (out of which he said he would donate $2.7m to charity), made on a without prejudice basis. This could not be accepted by the Government.

(Jointly issued by Ministry of Law, Ministry of Home Affairs - 30 June 2007)

» Have your say on this and other issues in our forum pages