Part B 2021 CRI21_PS04

CRI21_PS04
Session 4:

At an earlier plead-guilty mention, the Court rejected Dream’s plea of guilt because she
insisted, in her mitigation, that she did not intend to hurt Kent (see Practice Session 2,
Question 4). The Court then fixed the matter for a pre-trial conference and extended her bail.

Recalling how she had been charged in Court and confined to the dock, Dream went home
feeling frustrated and angry. She confided in her 19-year-old son, Flaire Onn, and blamed
Kent and Carrie for her situation. Upon hearing Dream’s predicament, Flaire wondered
aloud, “If only we could take revenge on them!” Dream later returned to her room and
thought to herself, “That’s right, I need to show them what I am capable of. An eye for an
eye, a tooth for a tooth!”

Dream then went to Carrie’s house at 12 Occlude Street and brought a can of spray paint
which she had purchased earlier. Upon seeing Carrie’s car parked outside the gate, Dream
took out the paint can from her bag and started spraying paint onto Carrie’s car. She first
sprayed an image of a giant cake on the car bonnet, before spraying paint randomly all over
the car. After the deed was done, she threw the paint can on the car boot and left the scene.

Carrie returned home later that day, saw the horrifying scene and called the Police
immediately. While waiting for the Police, she picked up the paint can and realised that the
culprit had used a water-soluble paint. She then paid $200 for a car specialist to remove the
water-soluble paint from her car. To her relief, the car specialist successfully removed the
paint and restored it to its original state.

Following further investigations, the Police ascertained that Dream was responsible for the
damage caused to Carrie’s car. Dream later regretted her actions and voluntarily compensated
Carrie for the damage caused. She paid $200 to Carrie and sent her a letter of apology.

SILE Part B 2021 1|P a g e

 Part B 2021 CRI21_PS04

(1) You are acting for Dream.

The Prosecution informs you that Dream has breached bail and will be charged
with one offence of mischief under section 426 of the Penal Code. Dream, upon
hearing this news, wishes to know how she has breached bail, and the consequences
of breaching bail, if any. Please advise Dream on her queries.

(2) Dream is eventually charged with one offence of mischief under section 426 of the
Penal Code.

The Prosecution informs you that they are proceeding on all three charges
regardless of plea. Based on the prescribed punishments and sentencing norms for
the charges against her, you have advised Dream that she may be sentenced to
imprisonment for each of her offences.

Dream intends to plead guilty. However, she wishes to know:

a) whether her commission of an offence whilst on bail would attract a heavier

sentence;

b) whether she can have her imprisonment terms run concurrently; and

c) whether the position will be different if the Prosecution proceeds against her on
only two charges, namely one count of voluntarily causing hurt to Kent and one
count of mischief.

Please advise Dream on her queries.

(3) After the conversation with Dream (his mother), Flaire posted about Dream’s
encounter with Kent on his Instagram account, and challenged the “woman-beater”
(referring to Kent) to meet him for a “manly showdown”. As Flaire was a popular
influencer at that time, his post gained significant traction and eventually caught
Kent’s attention. Kent contacted Flaire and offered to meet him the next day at A-
tarts Baking Factory to explain the true situation to him.

When both parties arrived at A-tarts the next day, Flaire, a martial arts
practitioner, walked up to Kent and suddenly rained punches on Kent. Kent could
not react in time, and was punched on his face, chest and shoulder region. The
attack stopped only after Flaire delivered a punch to Kent’s chest, thereby causing
Kent to fall to the ground. Flaire then brandished a knife, pointed it at Kent, and
said, “I will kill you if you come near me or my mother again!” After the incident,
Kent was conveyed to the hospital and was found to have suffered a fractured jaw,
bruises and contusions. As a result of his actions, Flaire is charged with two
offences, namely voluntarily causing grievous hurt and criminal intimidation under
sections 325 and 506 of the Penal Code respectively.

You are also acting for Flaire. He informs you that he is still on probation for a
series of criminal intimidation and hurt offences committed on his ex-girlfriend
SILE Part B 2021 2|P a g e
 Part B 2021 CRI21_PS04

(Flaire was 5 months into his 24-month term of probation when he assaulted Kent).
He proudly tells you that, despite his criminal history, he goes to a “top school” and
is doing well in his studies. Flaire seeks your advice on the likely sentencing
outcome in the event he pleads guilty to his charges. In particular, he wishes to
know if the Court is likely to sentence him to probation again as he is “so young”.
Please advise Flaire.

(4) The Prosecutor in charge of Flaire’s case informs you that the Prosecution intends
to proceed against him on both charges (voluntarily causing grievous hurt under
section 325 and criminal intimidation under section 506 of the Penal Code) at the
same trial if Flaire does not intend to plead guilty. Flaire is concerned that the
Prosecution proceeding on two serious charges against him at a single trial will
“really make [him] look like a hardened criminal”. Flaire asks if the Prosecution
can be compelled to prosecute him separately on both charges. Please advise him.

******

SILE Part B 2021 3|P a g e