Rehabilitation and Not Imprisonment Deemed More Appropriate For Young Offender

In the recent case of Muhammad Zuhairie Adely Bin Zulkifli v Public Prosecutor [2016] SGHC 134 (“Muhammad Zuhairie v
PP [2016]”), the High Court overruled the lower court’s decision and sentenced the 17 year old accused to reformative training rather than imprisonment and caning. This is despite of the fact that accused was previously engaged in a violent incident where he punched another in public. 

The relevant incident in the above mentioned case, concerns the accused’s act of slashing a schoolmate from behind resulting in fractures on his forearm, ring finger, little finger, a cut behind his left ear and a two-centimetre laceration on his upper back. The entire incident that occurred in front of at least 50 people was caught on video and widely circulated over social media.

Principles of sentencing youth offenders

In the judgment, the judge clearly rearticulated the well-established two-staged approach for a court sentencing a youthful offender.

Firstly, the task of the court is to identify and prioritise the primary sentencing considerations appropriate to the youth in question having regard to all the circumstances including those of the offence. Thereafter, the court is to select the appropriate sentence that would best meet those sentencing considerations and the priority that the sentencing judge has placed upon the relevant ones. (Public Prosecutor v Koh Wen Jie Boaz [2016] 1 SLR 334)

Applying the principles to the present case, it is trite law that rehabilitation retains its primacy in the sentencing matrix as ‘rehabilitation is the dominant sentencing consideration when dealing with youthful offenders’. Compassion is thus shown to them on the basis that the ‘young do not know better’. However, rehabilitation could be displaced by other considerations such as deterrence or rehabilitative prospects (the Boaz and Ansari factors). It is important to note at [29] where the court explains that ‘in situations where a youthful offender’s rehabilitative prospects are good, rehabilitation may not be outweighed by the need for deterrence despite the gravity of the offence committed by the youthful offender.’

In Muhammad Zuhairie v 
PP [2016] the court took the view that the Accused was not a hardened or recalcitrant offender. He had no antecedents and only have a moderate risk of re-offending. Also his history of aggressive behavior was not frequent or chronic. In addition, the judge was the view that the remorse demonstrated by the Appellant was genuine. Furthermore, the accused had also taken proactive steps to lead a more pro-social lifestyle by cutting off contact with his negative peers and stopped engaging in late night activities.

In the second step, after considering the various sentencing options the judge concluded that a sentence of reformative training was the most suitable to balance the need for deterrence. In deciding so the court considered the accused young age, unfortunate family background, rehabilitative potential and positive steps taken so far after his arrest. The corrupt influence of a prison environment was not desirable to for the accused to realized his reformative potential and would be able to build his life again.

In conclusion, the courts seem to have taken a holistic approach towards sentencing young offenders, ensuring that the law does not result in draconian penalties.

Should you have any questions or need legal representation, kindly contact Gloria James-Civetta & Co on 6337-0469 for a free consultation with one of our Singapore criminal lawyers, or email to consult@gjclaw.com.sg

Share on Google Plus

About Criminal Law

Philip Ben is young law practitioner and writes mostly on subjects related to Laws in Singapore, specially the Criminal Law and criminal procedures. Besides, he loves to read book, travel and cycling.