Courts shouldn't "undermine intent for casino
self-exclusion order"
SINGAPORE: Given that Parliament had decided not to
criminalise breaches of casino self-exclusion orders, the courts
should be mindful not to undermine the self-help regime as intended
by the lawmakers.
Too harsh a punishment for an offence, which
consists of breaching or attempting to breach a self-exclusion
order, will only dissuade those vulnerable to the temptation of
gambling from applying for a self-exclusion order in the first
place.
Chief Justice (CJ) Chan Sek Keong made these points
in a written judgement released on Thursday as he explained why a
man's two-month jail term was "wrong in principle, inappropriate
and manifestly excessive".
Xu Zhaohe, 41, was caught on September 4 last year for attempting
to use his wife's identity card (IC) to enter the casino at Resorts
World Sentosa, which is an offence under the National Registration
Act.
Xu's son had applied for a self-exclusion order in Sept 2010 on
Xu's behalf, out of Xu's "own fear that he would be unable to
resist the temptation of gambling in a casino".
Xu was sentenced to two months of jail by a District Judge, who
felt a deterrent sentence was warranted.
CJ Chan had allowed Xu's appeal and substituted the sentence with a
S$3,000 fine.
In his judgement, CJ Chan said he disagreed with the District Judge
as he felt this was a case where "a judge should have some
understanding of the nature of the offence" committed by Xu and why
he had committed it.
Although the use of another person's IC without lawful authority or
reasonable excuse is an offence, CJ Chan said the gravity of this
offence must depend on the purpose for which the IC is used, and
the sentence imposed by the court must in turn reflect the
offence's gravity.
The Chief Justice reiterated that Parliament's decision not to
criminalise breaches of self-exclusion orders is "highly material"
to the determination of the proper punishment in such cases.
The court must bear in mind enforcement measures that have already
been implemented in the Casino Control Act, which places the onus
on casinos to conduct "stringent checks to ensure that excluded
persons do not enter their premises", CJ Chan said.
"Criminalising breaches of self-exclusion orders will, in any
event, lead to an absurd outcome," he added.
"The result will be that an excluded person who has the foresight
to apply to lift his self-exclusion order before going to a casino
to gamble is not a criminal, but an excluded person who momentarily
succumbs to temptation and enters a casino to gamble despite the
self-exclusion order in force against him is."
CJ Chan said deterrence should also be "sensitively applied" for
family exclusion orders.
"Severe sentences for offences which consist essentially of
breaching or attempting to breach a family exclusion order may
inadvertently lead to greater internal conflict as the offenders
concerned may blame their punishment on the family member who
applied for the exclusion order," he added.
- TODAY
