Woo Haw Ming v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Sentence for Fraudulent Tenancies
Woo Haw Ming appealed against his sentence for two charges under s 420 of the Penal Code for entering into fraudulent tenancy agreements. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentences were not manifestly excessive. The District Judge had sentenced Woo to three months' imprisonment per charge, to run concurrently, for deceiving landlords into believing he would reside in the properties, which were then used as brothels.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against sentence for fraudulent tenancies used as brothels. The court dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence not manifestly excessive.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Norine Tan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Tai Wei Shyong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Timothy Ong of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Woo Haw Ming | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Vincent Hoong | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Norine Tan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tai Wei Shyong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Timothy Ong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Asoka Markandu | Anitha & Asoka LLC |
4. Facts
- Appellant pleaded guilty to two charges under s 420 of the Penal Code.
- Appellant entered into tenancy agreements without intending to reside in the properties.
- The properties were used as brothels.
- Appellant was paid $100 for signing the first tenancy agreement.
- Appellant renewed the first tenancy agreement.
- Police raided the unit and arrested three female subjects for offences under the Women’s Charter.
- The District Judge sentenced the appellant to three months’ imprisonment per charge, to run concurrently.
5. Formal Citations
- Woo Haw Ming v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9082 of 2022, [2022] SGHC 204
- Public Prosecutor v Woo Haw Ming, , [2022] SGDC 110
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant imprisoned for an unrelated offence. | |
| Appellant released from incarceration. | |
| Appellant entered into the First Tenancy Agreement. | |
| Police officers raided the Unit and arrested three female subjects. | |
| Appellant entered into the Second Tenancy Agreement. | |
| Hearing of the appeal. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Manifestly Excessive Sentence
- Outcome: The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.
- Category: Substantive
- Inference of Knowledge
- Outcome: The court found that the DJ was entitled to draw inferences from undisputed facts in determining the relevant factual matrix for sentencing purposes.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2017] 2 SLR 68
- Double Counting in Sentencing
- Outcome: The court held that the DJ did not transgress the rule against double counting.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2018] 5 SLR 799
- [2010] 1 SLR 874
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Fraud
- Deception
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Sentencing Guidelines
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Logachev Vladislav v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 609 | Singapore | Cited for the two-stage, five-step sentencing framework. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mikhy K Farrera Brochez | State Courts | Yes | [2017] SGDC 92 | Singapore | Cited as guidance in ascribing a value to the offence-specific factor concerning the frustration of government policy and regulations. |
| Dong Guitian v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2004] 3 SLR(R) 34 | Singapore | Cited as guidance in ascribing a value to the offence-specific factor concerning the frustration of government policy and regulations. |
| Chang Kar Meng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 68 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that a court can draw inferences in determining the relevant factual matrix for sentencing purposes. |
| Sue Chang v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 176 | Singapore | Observed that the Logachev sentencing approach combines the granularity of a sentencing matrix model with the holistic nature of the sentencing of the sentencing bands approach. |
| Ye Lin Myint v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] 5 SLR 1005 | Singapore | Cited as one of the reasons the High Court considered that a Logachev sentencing framework could aptly govern offences under s 507 of the Penal Code. |
| Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 449 | Singapore | Cited for the manner and mode by which an offence is committed. |
| Public Prosecutor v Development 26 Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 309 | Singapore | Cited that the charges and the statement of facts constitute the four corners of the case against a person who pleads guilty. |
| Abdul Aziz bin Mohamed Hanib v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 101 | Singapore | Cited that unreported decisions lack sufficient particulars to paint the entire factual landscape required to appreciate the precise sentences imposed. |
| Janardana Jayasankarr v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 1288 | Singapore | Cited the reason for placing little, if any, weight on unreported precedents – namely, that they are unreasoned. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Thian Earn | High Court | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 269 | Singapore | Cited that the ultimate sentence meted out by any court must adequately reflect the relative seriousness of the present offence as against the full range of possible offences under the relevant statutory provision. |
| Public Prosecutor v Raveen Balakrishnan | High Court | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 799 | Singapore | Cited that a sentencing factor should be given only its due weight in the sentencing analysis and nothing more. |
| ADF v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 874 | Singapore | Cited that the rule against double counting prohibits a court from attributing weight to a sentencing factor where this has already been fully factored into the sentencing equation. |
| Public Prosecutor v Law Aik Meng | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 814 | Singapore | Cited that the appellant committing the offences shortly after being released from custody and the difficulty in detecting fraudulent tenancies drew considerations of specific and general deterrence to the forefront of the sentencing calculus. |
| Huang Ying-Chun v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] 3 SLR 606 | Singapore | Cited for the promulgation of a presumptive sentence or a sentencing framework to deal with offences under s 420 of the Penal Code involving fraudulent tenancies. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 420 | Singapore |
| Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Fraudulent Tenancy
- Manifestly Excessive
- Sentencing
- Inference of Knowledge
- Double Counting
- Vice
- Brothel
15.2 Keywords
- fraudulent tenancy
- criminal law
- sentencing
- appeal
- brothel
- deception
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Sentencing | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 85 |
| Fraudulent Tenancies | 75 |
| Criminal Law | 70 |
| Theft | 30 |
| Contract Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Fraud