Case Details
- Title: LEE SHING CHAN v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
- Citation: [2020] SGHC 41
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date of Decision: 28 February 2020
- Procedural History: Magistrate’s Appeal Nos 9088 and 9089 of 2019 (appeals against conviction and/or sentence from the State Courts)
- Judges: Sundaresh Menon CJ, Tay Yong Kwang JA and Aedit Abdullah J
- Appellants: Lee Shing Chan; Tan Ah Lai
- Respondent: Public Prosecutor
- Charges: (1) Using abusive words towards a public servant in relation to the execution of his duty (s 6, Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed) (“POHA”)); (2) Unlawful stalking with common intention to cause alarm (s 7 POHA read with s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed))
- Key Statutory Provisions: s 6 POHA; s 7 POHA (including s 7(2) on “course of conduct”); s 34 Penal Code (common intention)
- Outcome in High Court: Appeals against conviction dismissed; appeals against sentence allowed. Sentences for s 7 charges reduced and ordered to run concurrently with s 6 sentences, resulting in an aggregate sentence of two weeks’ imprisonment for each appellant.
- Judgment Length: 28 pages; 7,767 words
- Legal Areas: Criminal Law; Statutory Offences; Protection from Harassment Act
- Statutes Referenced: Crimes Act 1958; Protection from Harassment Act
- Cases Cited: [2019] SGCA 81; [2019] SGMC 78; [2020] SGHC 41
Summary
In Lee Shing Chan v Public Prosecutor ([2020] SGHC 41), the High Court dealt with two related appeals arising from convictions under the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA). Both appellants, Lee Shing Chan and Tan Ah Lai, were convicted of (i) using abusive words towards a public servant in relation to the execution of his duty (s 6 POHA) and (ii) unlawful stalking with the common intention to cause alarm (s 7 POHA read with s 34 of the Penal Code). The stalking allegation centred on their conduct of following National Environment Agency (NEA) officers in a lorry for about three hours after enforcement action against the appellants’ illegal hawking.
The High Court dismissed the appeals against conviction. It held that the elements of unlawful stalking were made out, including that the appellants’ conduct amounted to a “course of conduct” and that the requisite intention to cause alarm was present. However, the court allowed the appeals against sentence. It set aside the Magistrate’s four-month imprisonment terms for the s 7 POHA offences and substituted shorter custodial sentences, ordering the s 6 and s 7 sentences to run concurrently. The practical effect was that each appellant served an aggregate sentence of two weeks’ imprisonment.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The appellants were unlicensed fruit hawkers. On 6 June 2016 at about 6.45pm, they were spotted selling fruits illegally near Yew Tee MRT station by two NEA officers: Mr Mohamed Shammir and Mr Siow Chee Tseng. At the time, Lee and another person, Mr Chow Yong Heng (“Chow”), were arranging boxes of fruits near Lee’s silver Nissan lorry. The NEA officers seized the fruits and parts of a makeshift display table and issued a summons to Tan for unlicensed hawking.
After the summons was issued, the NEA enforcement team left in a van (the “NEA Van”) to continue its operational tasks. The appellants and Chow then got into Lee’s lorry and followed the NEA Van. This following was not momentary. Instead, it continued across multiple locations over approximately three hours, during which the NEA officers were engaged in collecting and disposing of seized items and conducting further checks.
The High Court’s factual narrative showed a pattern of deliberate pursuit. The lorry followed the NEA Van from Yew Tee MRT to Lakeside MRT, then to a carpark near Pioneer MRT, and onward to a petrol station for a toilet break. It continued to the NEA North East Regional Office where seized items were unloaded. The lorry then followed to a McDonald’s restaurant where the NEA Van entered the drive-through as a further “test” to see whether the lorry would continue to follow. Finally, the lorry parked near Seah Im food centre, where the confrontation escalated.
At the Seah Im carpark, the appellants alighted and Lee demanded to see Siow’s warrant card. When Siow refused, Lee and Tan hurled vulgarities in the Hokkien dialect at Siow. This abusive-word incident formed the basis of the s 6 POHA charges. In addition, when the officers attempted to re-enter the NEA Van, Lee stood in front of the doors and held onto them. Chow did not participate in this confrontation and therefore did not face the s 6 charge. Later, on the manager’s advice, Shammir made a police report and the police interviewed the appellants and Chow. Chow had earlier pleaded guilty to the s 7 charge and was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment; by the time of the High Court hearing, he had already served his sentence.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The first major issue was whether the appellants’ conduct of following the NEA officers constituted unlawful stalking under s 7 POHA. Within that, the central sub-issue was temporal and qualitative: when is conduct on a single occasion “protracted” so as to qualify as a “course of conduct” under s 7(2)? The appellants argued that their following occurred on a single occasion and was not sufficiently protracted to meet the statutory threshold.
The second issue concerned the other elements of s 7 POHA. The court had to consider whether the appellants’ conduct was an act associated with stalking and whether the appellants had the intention (or at least the relevant mental element) to cause alarm. The appellants contended that their motive was not sinister: they wanted to retrieve their goods and did not conceal themselves. They also argued that the presence of an auxiliary police officer (APO) in the NEA Van meant that any claim of alarm was implausible.
The third issue related to sentencing. Even though the High Court upheld conviction, it had to decide whether the Magistrate’s sentencing approach was correct, including the applicable sentencing framework, parity with Chow’s sentence, and the appropriate level of deterrence for unlawful stalking of law enforcement officers carrying out their duties.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
On conviction, the High Court approached the statutory elements of s 7 POHA by examining the factual pattern as a whole. It accepted that the appellants’ following of the NEA officers was an act associated with stalking. The court emphasised that the conduct was not isolated or fleeting. It spanned multiple locations, involved repeated “tests” by the officers to determine whether the lorry was deliberately following, and persisted despite the NEA officers’ attempts to break the pattern. In that sense, the court treated the episode as a sustained course of conduct rather than a single, momentary act.
Addressing the “protracted” requirement under s 7(2), the High Court rejected the appellants’ characterisation that the following was merely a single occasion. The court noted that the following continued for about three hours and involved a sequence of movements that mirrored the NEA Van’s operational itinerary. The officers observed the lorry appearing to follow them, and they deliberately changed routes and locations to see if the lorry would continue to track them. The lorry did follow on each occasion. This repeated, sustained pattern supported the conclusion that the statutory concept of a “course of conduct” was satisfied.
The court also analysed intention to cause alarm. The Magistrate had found that the appellants intended to cause alarm, and the High Court saw no basis to disturb that finding. The appellants admitted that they decided to follow the NEA officers. While the appellants claimed they were following to retrieve their goods, the court considered the overall circumstances, including that the appellants followed the officers to places where the officers were engaged in enforcement-related tasks and where the appellants’ presence could reasonably be perceived as threatening or intimidating. The court accepted the testimony that the officers were alarmed and worried for their safety, including concern about being followed to their homes.
On the appellants’ argument that alarm could not have been caused because an APO was present, the High Court agreed with the Magistrate’s treatment of this as an afterthought. The court noted that this point was not put to the witnesses at trial, undermining its evidential value. Moreover, the court reasoned that the presence of an APO did not negate the possibility of alarm. Indeed, the appellants’ boldness in continuing to follow the NEA Van despite the presence of law enforcement personnel could itself be a factor that would cause alarm to reasonable officers.
Turning to sentencing, the High Court applied the relevant sentencing framework and considered the Magistrate’s approach. The Prosecution had sought at least four months’ imprisonment for the s 7 offences, relying on a framework articulated in Lim Teck Kim v Public Prosecutor ([2019] 5 SLR 279) (as referenced in the judgment extract). The Magistrate had imposed four months’ imprisonment for each appellant’s s 7 charge, ordered to run consecutively with the s 6 sentence. The High Court, however, found that the sentences were excessive in the circumstances.
In particular, the High Court recalibrated the sentencing outcome by considering parity and the role played by Chow. Chow had pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for the s 7 charge. The High Court treated Chow’s earlier guilty plea and lesser role as relevant parity considerations. It also considered that the appellants’ conduct, while serious, did not justify the same level of punishment as the Magistrate had imposed, especially given the overall aggregate effect of consecutive sentences.
The High Court also addressed deterrence. It accepted that deterrence is important where unlawful stalking targets law enforcement officers performing their duties. However, deterrence does not operate in isolation; it must be balanced against proportionality and the specific facts, including the nature and duration of the conduct and the presence of mitigating factors such as the appellants’ remorse and candour (as the extract indicates were advanced in mitigation before the Magistrate). The court therefore adjusted the custodial terms to reflect a more proportionate sentencing range.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court dismissed the appeals against conviction. It upheld the Magistrate’s findings that the elements of s 7 POHA were made out, including that the appellants’ following amounted to a “course of conduct” and that the requisite intention to cause alarm was present. The court therefore confirmed the convictions for unlawful stalking and the related s 6 POHA convictions.
However, the High Court allowed the appeals against sentence. It set aside the Magistrate’s four-month imprisonment terms for the s 7 charges and substituted them with two weeks’ imprisonment for each appellant’s s 7 offence. The court further ordered that the sentences for the s 6 and s 7 charges run concurrently. As a result, each appellant’s aggregate sentence was reduced to two weeks’ imprisonment.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This decision is significant for practitioners because it clarifies how Singapore courts interpret “course of conduct” under s 7(2) POHA in the context of stalking allegations that unfold over a single operational episode. The High Court’s reasoning indicates that “protracted” conduct can be established where the conduct is sustained over hours, involves repeated tracking across multiple locations, and persists despite deliberate attempts by the targeted persons to test or break the pattern.
For lawyers advising clients in POHA matters, the case also illustrates the evidential importance of trial advocacy. The appellants’ reliance on the presence of an APO to argue that alarm was implausible was rejected in part because it was not put to witnesses. This underscores that mitigation and factual explanations must be properly tested at trial to carry persuasive weight on appeal.
Finally, the case is a useful sentencing reference point. Even where conviction is upheld, the High Court demonstrated willingness to correct sentencing excesses by recalibrating custodial terms, applying parity considerations, and ensuring that consecutive sentencing does not produce an outcome that is disproportionate to the overall criminality. Practitioners should therefore treat Lee Shing Chan as both an authority on the elements of unlawful stalking and a guide on how sentencing frameworks and parity may be applied in POHA prosecutions involving law enforcement targets.
Legislation Referenced
- Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed) — s 6; s 7; s 7(2) [CDN] [SSO]
- Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) — s 34
- Crimes Act 1958 (as referenced in the case metadata)
Cases Cited
- [2019] SGCA 81
- [2019] SGMC 78
- [2020] SGHC 41
- Lim Teck Kim v Public Prosecutor [2019] 5 SLR 279 (referenced in the judgment extract)
Source Documents
This article analyses [2020] SGHC 41 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.