Sent to jail for 17 years, he appeals 10 years later
By Selina Lum
The Straits Times
Saturday, Nov 24, 2012
SINGAPORE - After spending more than a decade in jail, a 43-year-old man decided to appeal against his sentence of a total of 17 years of corrective training.
Koh Thian Huat's sentence stemmed from two separate terms of corrective training - seven years and 10 years - ordered to run one after another.
On Wednesday, Justice V.K. Rajah ordered the two terms to run concurrently - which means that Koh is now a free man.
Even though he was 10 years late in filing an appeal, he was allowed to have his day in court on Wednesday.
His lawyer, Mr Derek Kang, who acted for Koh pro bono, told the High Court that this is the only case in Singapore in which consecutive terms of corrective training were imposed.
Corrective training is a regime in which repeat offenders are jailed for five to 14 years. It does not offer the usual one-third remission for good behaviour.
Koh has a long criminal record of offences including robbery with hurt and vehicle theft dating back to 1988.
In March 2002, he was sentenced to seven years' corrective training by a district court for stealing two necklaces from a department store. He filed an appeal. While on bail pending the appeal hearing, he committed snatch theft of a haversack.
He withdrew the appeal for the seven-year term and started serving the sentence in May 2002.
In October 2002, he was sentenced by another district court to 10 years' corrective training for his most recent offence. This was ordered to start after the end of the seven-year term.
In August this year, after serving more than 10 years, Koh was allowed to file an appeal out of time.
On Wednesday, Mr Kang argued that the second term should not have been ordered to run after the first. He argued that 17 years of corrective training was not proportional to the aim of reformation.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Mark Jayaratnam did not object to reducing the cumulative term.
Justice Rajah agreed that while the district court has the power to order the terms to run consecutively, it was incorrect to make such an order on the facts of this case.
