SMU | YPH SCHOOL OF LAW | 2026
SEMINAR 6
SENTENCING OFFENDERS WITH MENTAL DISORDERS
Seminar synopsis
Be it for offenders who have pleaded guilty or convicted, sentencing is an integral part of the criminal justice system. It is also an intricate and complex process plagued by many a balance of multiple considerations: the needs and concern of society, the characteristics of the offence, and the predicament and needs of the offender himself or herself.
Sentencing mentally-disordered offenders poses more of a challenge. In doing so, a court has to pay special attention to issues such as risk of future harm and recidivism, the offender’s level of culpability, and his/her amenability to rehabilitation and treatment.
This week’s seminar explores some of these issues. You will be introduced (very generally) to the field of correctional psychology and the principles behind treating and managing offenders in an institutional setting. We will also take a look at how Singapore courts have approached the sentencing of offenders diagnosed with mental disorders, as well as the sentencing options available in such situations. If time permit, we will quickly discuss some of the tools psychologists and psychiatrists use to assess risk of re-offending and future violence.
Readings
Loh, E. H., & Cheng, X. L. (2023). Introduction to correctional rehabilitation in Singapore Prison Service. In Correctional rehabilitation and psychological interventions in Singapore. World Scientific Publishing. (electronic copy will be made available on eLearn)
Criminal Procedure Code 2010, sections 339 and 340
Kenneth Goh, Jimmy Lee, Stephen Phang, Jerome Goh, “The MTO in Singapore – The 1st Year” Unpublished manuscript (electronic copy will be made available on eLearn)
Chua Hui Han Eunice, “Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders: Lessons from the US and Singapore” (2011) 23 SAcLJ at 434 (electronic copy will be made available on eLearn)
Lee Ghim Peow v PP [2014] 4 SLR 1287
PP v Goh Lee Yin and another appeal [2008] 1 SLR(R) 824
PP v Soo Cheow Wee [2023] SGHC 204
PP v Chong Hou En [2015] 3 SLR 222
PP v Sutherson, Sujay Solomon [2016] 1 SLR 632
PP v Gaiyathiri d/o Murugayan [2021] SGHC 187
Neo Man Lee v PP [1991] 1 SLR(R) 918
Purwanti Parji v PP [2005] 2 SLR(R) 220
PP v Mohammad Zam bin Abdul Rashid [2006] SGHC 168
Public Prosecutor v Lim Chee Yin Jordon [2018] 4 SLR 1294
GCX v PP [2019] SGHC 14
PP v ASR [2019] SGCA 16 - This is an especially important case because it is a CA decision that deals extensively with the issue of intellectual disability, its assessment, and the sentencing of offenders who suffer from it. You must be thoroughly familiar with this decision.
When approaching these cases, keep in mind my advice, and read smart with the focus of our seminar in mind (if you get what I mean).
The key is to always try to relate the cases to the theories/concepts we're learning, and ask ourselves: what point is this case trying to make; what does this case stand for?