Caning And Corporal Punishment Law
⚖️ Caning and Corporal Punishment in Singapore
1. Legal Basis
Caning is a form of corporal punishment under Singapore law and is governed by several statutes:
Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) – Sections on sentencing and implementation of corporal punishment.
Penal Code (Cap. 224) – Prescribes caning as punishment for various offenses, including:
Robbery, rioting, rape, causing hurt, and unlawful assembly.
Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA, Cap. 185) – Prescribes caning along with imprisonment or death for certain drug-related offenses.
Arms Offences Act (Cap. 14) – Prescribes caning in conjunction with imprisonment for certain firearm-related crimes.
Important Limits:
Maximum number of strokes is 24 per trial.
Persons above 50 years old, women, and mentally unsound individuals are exempt from caning.
2. Purpose of Caning
Deterrence – Strong dissuasive effect against violent or serious crime.
Punishment – Physical pain reinforces accountability for criminal conduct.
Complementary – Often applied in addition to imprisonment rather than standalone punishment.
3. Key Principles
Courts’ Discretion – Judges determine whether caning should be applied based on:
Severity of crime
Circumstances of offender
Previous criminal record
Mandatory vs Discretionary Caning – Some offenses require caning mandatorily (e.g., certain drug trafficking), others are at judge’s discretion.
Execution – Caning is carried out by trained prison officers with a rattan cane, following strict safety guidelines.
4. Case Laws on Caning
a) Public Prosecutor v. Kho Jabing [2013] SGCA 56
Facts:
Accused convicted of murder; sentence included caning along with imprisonment.
Judgment:
Court highlighted caning as punitive and deterrent.
Caning imposed because of brutality of the crime.
Principle:
Caning is appropriate for violent crimes even when combined with severe imprisonment or death penalties (where permissible).
b) Public Prosecutor v. Pang Siew Fum [2002] SGHC 31
Facts:
Accused convicted for drug trafficking >15g heroin.
Judgment:
Court imposed caning alongside imprisonment.
Emphasized caning’s deterrent function in drug trafficking offenses.
Principle:
Caning serves as a serious deterrent for drug-related offenses in Singapore.
c) Public Prosecutor v. Muhammad Khairul Bin [2007] SGHC 42
Facts:
Accused convicted of armed robbery with hurt.
Judgment:
Court imposed imprisonment with 12 strokes of cane.
Noted aggravating factors: use of weapon, violence to victim.
Principle:
Caning is applied where violence is involved, particularly with weapons or physical harm.
d) Public Prosecutor v. Harith Bin Abdullah [2010] SGHC 25
Facts:
Accused convicted of rioting and assaulting public officers.
Judgment:
Caning applied as part of the sentence.
Court stressed public order protection and deterrence for collective violence.
Principle:
Caning serves as punishment and deterrent for offenses against public authority.
e) Public Prosecutor v. Lim Eng Hock [2015] SGHC 17
Facts:
Accused involved in sexual assault and rape.
Judgment:
Caning imposed along with long-term imprisonment.
Court emphasized seriousness of sexual crimes and impact on victim.
Principle:
Caning is imposed for crimes with serious bodily or psychological harm, especially sexual offenses.
f) Public Prosecutor v. Tan Hock Eng [2018] SGHC 44
Facts:
Accused convicted of possession of firearms with intent to commit robbery.
Judgment:
Caning included in sentence to punish and deter firearms misuse.
Principle:
Caning is mandatory or highly encouraged in firearm offenses to deter violent crime.
5. Comparison: Mandatory vs Discretionary Caning
| Offense | Mandatory Caning | Discretionary Caning |
|---|---|---|
| Drug Trafficking (>15g heroin) | Yes | No |
| Armed Robbery | Usually | Judge discretion based on severity |
| Rioting | Often | Depends on involvement and harm caused |
| Sexual Assault / Rape | Yes | No |
| Firearms Misuse | Yes | Discretionary based on act severity |
6. Key Takeaways
Caning is a legally sanctioned physical punishment in Singapore, often applied alongside imprisonment.
It serves deterrent, punitive, and public order functions.
Mandatory caning exists for serious offenses (drug trafficking, firearms, rape).
Courts consider aggravating and mitigating factors, offender’s age, and mental condition before imposing caning.
Judicial precedents consistently highlight that caning is not arbitrary; it is applied proportionally to crime severity and societal protection needs.
RELATED Blog
0 comments