• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

HOT! Female Toilet also written with slogans fucking LHL now. When..

sense

Alfrescian
Loyal
Disgracing Opposition parties


Yap, this act of vandalism could have been easily done by you! The toilet could be a male or female toilet - if it's the latter, you are admitting your perverted act as well?

Please refrain from your childish/lunatic/senseless acts, you have already brought much disgrace to the Opposition parties.

"Punishment for committing mischief.
426.Whoever commits mischief shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months, or with fine,
or with both.
:
:
Word or gesture intended to insult the modesty of a woman.
509.Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any
object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen by such woman, or
intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or
with fine, or with both.

Source: Penal Code, Chapter 224"

---

"Nuisances
11. —(1) Any person who commits any of the following offences shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding
$1,000:
(a) without authority in the case of public property, or without the consent of the owner or occupier in the case of
private property, affixes or causes to be affixed any advertisement, bill or notice, or any paper against or upon any
building, wall or fence, or writes upon, defaces or marks any such building, wall or fence with chalk or paint, or in
any other way;
:
:
(2) Any person who commits an offence under subsection (1) (f), after having been previously convicted for an offence under
that subsection, shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $2,000.
:
:
Intentional harassment, alarm or distress
13A.—(1) Any person who in a public place or in a private place, with intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress to
another person—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour; or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that person or any other person harassment, alarm or distress, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable
on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000.
Harassment, alarm or distress
13B.—(1) Any person who in a public place or in a private place—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour; or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of any person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby shall be guilty of an
offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $2,000.
Fear or provocation of violence
13C. Any person who in a public place or in a private place —
(a) uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour; or
(b) distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening,
abusive or insulting,
with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another person by
any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another person, or whereby that person is
likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked shall be guilty of an offence
and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $2,000.

Source: Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act


back_bone_shiver_-_no-excuses-480-64x64.gif
 

glockman

Old Fart
Asset
Re: Disgracing Opposition parties

Yap, this act of vandalism could have been easily done by you! The toilet could be a male or female toilet - if it's the latter, you are admitting your perverted act as well?

Please refrain from your childish/lunatic/senseless acts, you have already brought much disgrace to the Opposition parties.

"Punishment for committing mischief.
426.Whoever commits mischief shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months, or with fine,
or with both....


Please lah, Uncle Yap has more courage and guts in his little finger than you do in your whole body. Newbie keyboard warrior, who the hell are you to accuse him of vandalism, calling him a pervert/childish/lunatic/senseless, disgrace to the Opposition parties??? Go find a spider and fuck it!
 

drifter

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Re: Disgracing Opposition parties

Please lah, Uncle Yap has more courage and guts in his little finger than you do in your whole body. Newbie keyboard warrior, who the hell are you to accuse him of vandalism, calling him a pervert/childish/lunatic/senseless, disgrace to the Opposition parties??? Go find a spider and fuck it!

this guy is a PAP dog ...confirm . go and check all his posting ...:wink: by the way , hes not newbie :wink: just another clone .
 
Last edited:

drifter

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Re: Disgracing Opposition parties

Hmmm so he's a clone. Too many of them in this forum liao.

bobian ...election coming ..they have to obey their master cause . master who put the food outside their kennel ..
 

sense

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: Disgracing Opposition parties

Case Law. 286kb pdf file:
1. http://www.mediafire.com/?1e8ahe0d5md9xie
2. Alternative link: https://www.sendthisfile.com/ZSypc0PoNV130s3eUNscKTqj

"Chee Kin Seng v Public Prosecutor [2000] SGDC 55

Suit No : MA No 241 of 2000, DAC No 25119 of 2000
Decision Date : 31 Dec 2000
Court : District Court
Coram : Zainol Adeedin B Hussin
Counsel :

JUDGMENT:
Grounds of Decision
1. The accused, a Software Engineer, was tried on the following charge for criminal trespass into a cubicle inside the ladies toilet at his place of employment:
DAC 25119 of 2000 (P1)
You,
Chee Kin Seng, Male 24 years
FIN No: 2225355R
(Date of Birth: 3.4.1976)
are charged that you on the 23rd of June 2000, at or about 6.01 pm, at No. 10 Ang Mo Kio Street 65, Tech Point, Singapore, did commit criminal trespass to wit, by entering the cubicle in the ladies toilet located at the 4th level near to #04-11, with intent to cause annoyance to Aw Soke Quin I/C No: S1791412Z and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 447 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.
2. He was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to two weeks imprisonment on 31.8.2000. He served his sentence until 7.9.2000, when he lodged the Notice of Appeal only against his conviction. He did not apply for bail pending his appeal. He had completed his two weeks term by 13.10.2000.
3. It was not disputed that the accused and Aw Soke Quin, referred to in the charge (PW2), were both employed by National Computer Systems Pte Ltd ("NCS") located on the 4th level of Tech Point building. The accused joined NCS as a Software Engineer on 1.7.1999, whereas PW2, also known as Susan, was the NCS receptionist since 4.1.1999. Although they knew each other as working for different departments in the same company and on the same level of Tech Point, they apparently have not spoken to each other until the date of the incident. There was also no dispute that the accused did go into the cubicle in the ladies toilet on the date and time specified. He was confronted by PW2 and her female colleagues as he came out of the said cubicle in their presence. The prosecutions case was that the accused went into the cubicle to peep at PW2, who was in the next cubicle, as she was changing out of her uniform after work. The defence version was that the accused had mistakenly gone into the cubicle in the ladies toilet because he was in a haste to relieve himself from his diarrhoea which he had suffered since lunch that day. There was also no question that the ladies toilet was adjacent to and separate from the gents toilet at the 4th level of Tech Point. The ladies toilet at the 4th level was further down the corridor as a person proceeds from NCS to the toilets. This was represented in the photographs P3 at pages 2 and 3. According to the defence, the accused was mistaken also because he has also used the 6th level toilets, where the order was that the ladies toilet was located first and the gents toilet was further down the corridor (photographs P3 pages 7 and 8). The prosecutions version was that the accused had gone into the female toilet cubicle intending to peep at PW2, who was in the next cubicle (photograph P3 page 5), by using a mirror placed on his shoe. The accused denied having a mirror with him. There was no dispute that the mirror which seen by PW2 from her cubicle, was not found, despite several searches on the accuseds body, his bag and in the toilets that evening.

PROSECUTIONS CASE
4. PW1, the Investigation Officer produced the first information report, P2 which showed that on 23.6.2000, at about 6.00 pm, there was a call to the police stating that "The guy went into the ladies toilet". PW1 carried out investigations and he produced the photographs P3 and the plan, P5 showing the "layout of 4th level of Tech Point showing National Computer Systems Pte Ltd on the right" (page 4 of the NE). The ladies toilet in question was highlighted in green on P5 and was used by the staff and public alike. PW1 testified that photograph 2, showed "the 4th storey corridor leading to the male and female toilets located on the left side of the corridor as you look into the picture". Photograph 3 showed that, towards the end of the corridor, the gents toilet was located before the ladies toilet. Photograph 8 showed the corridor leading to the 6th level toilet and photograph 7 was the close up view of the end of this corridor showing that the ladies toilet was located before the gents toilet. PW1 confirmed that, comparing page 3 with page 7 of the photographs P3, this was the reverse order of the toilets on the 4th level.
5. Photograph 4 showed the inside of the ladies toilet on the 4th level, showing three cubicles on the left. According to PW1, "the accused was occupying the centre cubicle while the complainant occupied the very last one". Photograph 6 was "the close up view of the two toilets, one occupied by complainant and the other occupied by the accused" (page 3 of the NE). The photograph at page 5 of P3 showed the cubicle, which the accused was in. PW1 took the measurement of the gap "from floor upwards to the bottom of the partition" separating the adjoining cubicles. The gap "was 11.2 cm or 4.5 inches" (page 3 of the NE). PW1 confirmed that he went into the female toilet himself and he saw "no urinals in the female toilet outside the cubicles" (page 4 of the NE).
6. PW2, ("the complainant") testified that she had been working for NCS since 4.1.99 as a receptionist. She wore uniform during her work. It was her habit to change into her uniform before starting work and to change out of her uniform after her work. She changed inside the ladies toilet outside the NCS office, not in the internal toilet (pages 8 and 14 of the NE). She confirmed that P3, page 3 showed "the male and female toilet with facility for disabled" situated on the fourth level and that page 2 showed the "fourth level leading to the toilets on the left side". The female toilet was "further away from the viewer" as shown in P3 page 3.
7. On 23.6.2000, at about 6.00 pm, PW2 was changing into her uniform, after her work, inside the "last cubicle on the left-hand side" of the ladies toilet on the fourth level. She identified the cubicle that she was in that evening, as the last cubicle on the left row beside the one for the handicapped as reflected in P3 photograph 4 (page 9 of the NE). She went inside the cubicle to change "for privacy".
8. When PW2 entered the ladies toilet, she did not "see anyone outside the cubicles". She stated that she then "entered the last cubicle and changed into my pair of jeans from my full uniform, a skirt into a jeans". She then heard a sound and related that, when she "looked down, I saw a mirror attached flatly on a pair of black shoes just one of the shoes" (page 9 of the NE). She saw this mirror only for a "few seconds" (page 21 of the NE). It was "placed on a shoe" (page 9 of the NE).
9. Under re-examination, PW2 explained how she could see the shoe:
"Q: Was the shoe protruding into your cubicle at the time?
A: It wasnt protruding into my cubicle.
Q: From where you were, you looked down and saw the shoes in the adjacent cubicle.
A: Yes, I did" (page 21 of the NE).
10. Defence Counsel was permitted to question PW2 after the above re-examination and she explained how she managed to see the mirror:
"Q: You saw the mirror on the black shoe?
A: Yes.
Q: You were changing at that time?
A: Yes.
Q: Cubicle is quite small?
A: Big enough.
Q: Were you seated?
A: Standing up.
Q: Upright?
A: Upright.
Q: All along?
A: No.
Q: When did you see the black shoes?
A: When I removed my skirt.
Q: The shoe and mirror did not protrude into your cubicle?
A: They did not" (pages 22 and 23 of the NE).
It was never put forward to PW2 that she did not see any mirror on the shoe or that the accused had no mirror with him when he was in the cubicle next to hers.
11. I noted PW1s evidence that the partition, separating the cubicle which PW2 was in from the next cubicle, started from "11.2 cm or 4.5 inches" above the floor. There was a gap through which PW2 could probably see the shoe from her cubicle. The learned DPP sought further clarification from PW2 as to how she could have seen it:
"Q: Can you clarify what you meant by not being upright all along?
A: I had to bend when I used my skirt.
Q: Where were you facing when you bent?
A: The floor" (page 23 of the NE).
It could be inferred that PW2 had seen the mirror on the shoe in the next cubicle through the continuous gap below the toilet partition, as she was bending down to put on her skirt.
12. PW2 could give a consistent account of the shape, size and colour of the mirror. In evidence-in-chief, she stated:
"It was a round mirror with pink border. I do not know the dimension, it was about this big (witness showed a circle formed with her two hands). About cm in diameter". (page 9 of the NE).
Under cross-examination, she confirmed:
"Q: Describe the mirror.
A: Round mirror with pink border.
Q: How thick?
A: Round mirror with pink border placed flat on the black shoe" (page 15 of the NE).
This went uncontradicted.
13. PW2 continued her evidence-in-chief that when she "saw the mirror, my sense told me that something was not right"; that "something was wrong"; and that she "felt angry" (pages 10 and 12 of the NE). She finished changing from her uniform, she "came out of the ladies cubicle and walked to the ladies doorway, the entrance to the ladies toilet". She did not see anyone outside the cubicles in the ladies toilet when she came out of her cubicle. It was when she "went to the doorway and spotted a female colleague", Dawn Kng (PW3) that she called out to her. At that time, PW3 was walking towards the lift. PW3 came over to PW2. At the same time, another female colleague of PW2, Fannie Nio (PW4) "was on her way to the female toilet" and was also with PW2 and PW3. PW2 "whispered to them that there is a peeping tom inside the toilet".
PW3 and PW4 went into the ladies toilet and, together with PW2, they "stood outside the cubicle, which was occupied and waited outside". PW2 confirmed that they waited outside the centre cubicle shown in P3, photograph 4, the cubicle to the right of the one for the disabled (page 10 of the NE).
14. Under cross-examination, PW2 maintained that when she came out of her cubicle, she went out of the toilet, spotted PW3 and called her into the toilet. She did not call out to PW4 because PW4 was going to the toilet and she came along. PW2 insisted that the three of them stood outside the second cubicle shown in P3, page 4 and waited (pages 15 and 16 of the NE). She denied the defence version that she, PW3 and PW4 were not waiting outside the cubicle and that she was actually waiting at the entrance to the ladies toilet waiting for the accused (page 18 of the NE). It would be convenient to highlight here that PW2s version would be substantially corroborated by PW3. However, PW4 gave a different version, that PW3 was not present in the ladies toilet and that the accused had gone into the ladies cubicle again after he had come out. Both PW3 and PW4 did confirm PW2s version that she was actually standing outside the cubicle and waiting for the accused to come out and that PW2 was not waiting the entrance to ladies toilet at that moment. They also confirmed that the accused apologised to PW2, not to PW3 or PW4, when he came out of the cubicle.
15. PW2 testified that when she was waiting outside the centre cubicle shown in P3, page 4, the "door of the cubicle was locked and that a "few minutes later, I heard a flushing sound". The door of the cubicle then opened and PW2 saw the accused "came out of the ladies toilet". The accused was wearing a pair of blue jeans and a sweater and black shoes (page 10 of the NE).
PW2 knew the accused to be "an employee in the Telco department in the National Computer Systems (S) Pte Ltd", that they were colleagues, but that she had no interaction with him (pages 10 and 120 of the NE). PW2 went on to say that the accused "saw me and said he is sorry". PW2 told the accused:
"What are you doing inside the ladies toilet? You were peeping at me, didnt you"?
The accused replied to PW2: "No" (page 11 of the NE).
:
:
32. I noted that it was never put to PW4 that the accused had apologised to her when she was washing her hands although it was put to PW4 that she was washing her hands when the accused came out of the cubicle (page 38 of the NE). On the other hand, PW4 had positively stated, unchallenged, that the accused had apologised to PW2 about two or three times (page 39 of the NE).
33. PW5, Staff Sgt Masrun arrived at Tech Point at 6.40 pm on 3.6.2000 when he "attended a case of a guy in the ladies toilet". He went to level 4 where there "was a toilet at fourth level near #04-11" and he saw many people along the corridor including the Security Guard, PW2 the accused and a witness (pages 44 and 46 of the NE).
PW5 interviewed the accused. The accused told PW5 that "he had this bad habit of going in the ladies toilet" but the accused did not tell PW5 the reason why. The accused did inform PW5 that "he was suffering from diarrhoea and needed to rush to the toilet and unfortunately, he went into the wrong one". PW5 was with the accused for one hour and the accused did request to go to the Gents once. PW5 considered that the accused "looked normal" then (page 47 of the NE).
34. PW5 went into the ladies toilet, shown in P3 (pages 2 and 4) and conducted a search there. He had been told by PW2 that the accused "used a small mirror" (pages 45 and 47 of the NE). He found nothing in the ladies toilet. PW5 "conducted an upper body search" on the accused and also searched his "pants pockets" for the mirror. He also searched through the accuseds bag but "found nothing". He brought the accused to both the male and female toilets and "checked all toilet bowls, rubbish bins and upper part of the partitions of toilets" and all he saw was the "briefs in the toilet bowls in one of the cubicles" in the gents toilet. It was "soiled with shit" and the accused admitted the briefs were his. The accused picked up the briefs and showed it to PW5 inside the gents toilet. The accused sought PW5s permission to dispose of the briefs and PW5 "said yes" (page 46 of the NE).
The accused disposed of his briefs. PW5 subsequently brought the accused to the Police Station at 7.45 pm for questioning.
35. PW5 also provided the information that the partitions in the gents toilet at the fourth level were painted green. As for the walls of the gents toilet, "the upper portion was white and lower portion was dark green (page 44 of the NE). It could be seen from P3, pages 4 to 6 that the partitions in the fourth level ladies toilet were orange or red in colour and the walls were brownish in the lower portion and beige in the upper portion. The colour schemes of the internal walls and partitions were totally different for the ladies and the gents toilet.

DEFENCE CALLED
36. At the close of the prosecutions case, the charge was amended to reflect that the accused entered the "cubicle in the ladies toilet" (P1A). Defence Counsel tendered written submissions (D1), essentially arguing that although there was "no dispute that the accused entered the ladies toilet", there was no evidence and the prosecution had not proved, that he had the intention to enter or remain in the ladies toilet "to insult, intimidate or annoy the alleged victim", PW2. He added that:
"Accused suffered from stomachache and had diarrhoea as corroborated by prosecution witnesses. He had entered by mistake" (page 49 of the NE).
He submitted that the accused had no intention of peeping at the complainant and did not peep at her at all and therefore did not commit criminal trespass.
37. I considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses. I noted from the accuseds cautioned statement, P4 that, although the accused stated that he "went into the girls toilet accidentally, I did not peep", he did not disclose that he had stomachache or diarrhoea. Defence Counsel had also not taken into account PW2s evidence that she saw the mirror placed on the shoe in the cubicle in which the accused was. She was cross-examined about the mirror but was not contradicted that she saw it (pages 21 and 22 of the NE). PW4 was also uncontradicted on her evidence. PW2 had told her, while the accused was still inside the cubicle, that "somebody was peeping at her using a mirror" (page 38 of the NE) whereas PW3 was unchallenged on her evidence that PW2 confronted the accused with the words "Are you peeping at me? I saw you using the mirror" when he came out of the cubicle (page 26 of the NE). PW5 also confirmed that the accused was searched for the mirror. According to PW3, the accused "denied using the mirror". There was no conceivable reason why the accused would place the "mirror attached flatly on his shoe" if he had gone into the ladies toilet and into the cubicle, in great haste because of his stomachache or diarrhoea.
It was also unlikely that the accused, in his great haste, would go to the female toilet which was further down the corridor than the gents toilet. As he joined the NCS in July 1999, about a year before the incident, it was unlikely that he could have entered the ladies toilet by mistake, thinking that it was the gents toilet. There was no urinal in the ladies toilet and the colour of the walls and partitions in the gents toilet was totally different from that in the ladies. There was strong circumstantial evidence supporting the inference that the accused could not have been mistaken about entering the cubicle inside the ladies toilet. The evidence that he had the mirror, which was subsequently not found and that he denied having the mirror, supported the element that he intended to peep at and cause annoyance to PW2, who was changing inside the adjacent cubicle. There was no dispute that PW2 was indeed annoyed by the accuseds presence inside the ladies toilet.
:
39. It is settled law, from the cases of PP V Seah Koon Seong [1993] 3 SLR 442 and PP V Pardeep Singh s/o Amar Singh [1999] 3 SLR 116 that the intent to annoy under section 441 of the Penal Code
"may be clearly inferred from the surrounding circumstances though it will not be lightly inferred. When the court does infer such intention, there is no need for the prosecution to adduce further evidence to prove intention. Having a dominant or an express intention does not preclude to infer the court from proceeding further to infer from the facts the requisite intention, provided the facts do allow".
40. There obviously were surrounding circumstances, including the accuseds presence inside a cubicle in the ladies toilet with a mirror placed on his shoe, while PW2 was inside the adjacent cubicle changing, from which I could infer that the accused intended to either peep at PW2 or to invade upon her privacy. This would translate into an intention to annoy PW2. Whether or not the accused had the intention to annoy PW2 could be inferred from the facts showing his conduct and the surrounding circumstantial evidence. I considered that there existed sufficient evidence, not inherently incredible, to support the elements in the offence of criminal trespass.
41. I found a prima facie case has been established and called upon the accused to enter upon his defence. He elected to give evidence and called three of his former colleagues and also his former superior officer at NCS in his defence.

DEFENCE CASE
44. The accused confirmed that he was working as a Software Engineer with NCS since 1.7.99 and that his office was at the fourth level of Tech Point. He agreed that the corridor leading to the toilets for the fourth level was as shown in the photograph P3 page 2; that the gents toilet was nearer that the ladies toilet, which was a the far corner; that one had to pass the gents toilet before going to the ladies toilet; and that he had used the gents toilet at the fourth level before (pages 54 and 55 of the NE).
45. It would be significant to highlight at this juncture that although the accused had been working at NCS for "close to one year", he apparently could not recall the colour of the partitions and walls of the gents toilet and he even stated that they "could be" red in colour (page 55 of the NE). PW5s evidence was that the partitions and p art of the walls of the gents toilet were green (page 44 of the NE). On the other hand, there was no question that the partitions in the ladies toilets were red and the walls partly brown. The accused would later say that he normally used the "internal toilet", he sometimes used the fourth level gents toilet (page 73 of the NE) and he "always go to the sixth floor" gents toilet (page 74 of the NE). He claimed that he could not realise the colour of the gents toilet in the fourth or sixth level of Tech Point, even when he gave evidence. However, he could positively remember that the colour of the ladies toilet was "Red whenever you entered" although he had entered it only once (page 75 of the NE). This was incredible, considering that the last toilet he had entered, before being brought to the Police Station, was the gents at the fourth level.
46. His own Counsel apparently found it difficult to believe that the accused could not recall the colour of the toilet he had used for about a year:
"Q: For one whole year you entered the gents toilet but didnt bother about the colour?
A: I didnt notice.
Q: How do you explain that?
A: Maybe the colour never came to my mind and that it actually differentiated between male and female toilets. I am doing my three year course in the National University of Singapore and the colour of the gents is red" (page 75 of the NE).
The accused had apparently shut out from his mind the colour of the partitions to the Gents toilet and could only remember the colour of the ladies toilet at Tech Point. He could, however, remember the colour of the NUS toilet although it had nothing to do with his trial. I found the accused to be wholly evasive and untruthful when he claimed that he could not even recall the colour of the gents toilet, which he had been using for about a year, right up to the final moments before his arrest on 23.6.2000. The accuseds claim defied belief:
:
:
:
82. DW5 recalled that the "management personnel" of NCS asked PW2 how she was going to settle the matter and whether she wanted to report it. PW2 confirmed that she wanted to report to the police. The police was called and they waited for the police. When the police arrived, DW5 told them that the CNB officer had already done a search on the accused. He suggested that the police confirm this with the CNB officer. DW5 showed the accuseds underwear to the police and "asked him whether he wanted to collect the underwear as evidence but he said it was not necessary" (page 109 of the NE). When cross-examined why he had asked the police about taking the underwear as evidence, DW5 replied:
"Because when I talked to Kim Seng, he said he had diarrhoea. So I thought this was proof that what he said was true. He did have diarrhoea" (page 113 of the NE).
The police later brought the accused to the police station. DW5 subsequently reported to his Manager that "his staff was accused of entering the female toilet, of peeping and that he was put in lock up in Ang Mo Kio Police Station". After this report, DW5 was informed that the accuseds service was terminated.

DECISION
83. At the close of the defence case, I reviewed the evidence adduced by the accused and his witnesses against the evidence presented by the prosecution. I considered the respective submissions of the learned Defence Counsel and DPP (pages 115 to 120 of the NE).
84. I accepted the evidence of PW2 that, from the gap at the bottom of the toilet cubicle she was in, she saw the mirror, placed on the black shoe in the adjacent cubicle which the accused was occupying at the time. She was not contradicted by Defence Counsel that he saw the mirror. On the other hand, when Defence Counsel asked her to describe the mirror again, she gave the same detailed description of it (pages 9 and 15 of the NE). Defence Counsel did not also put or suggest to her that there was no such mirror in the cubicle occupied by the accused. The accused was confronted about this mirror the moment he came out of the cubicle and he denied it (page 26 of the NE). This confrontation was also not challenged by Defence Counsel.
85. There was no dispute that the mirror was not found on the accused or in the female or male toilets on the fourth level despite the searches by the CNB officer and the police. I considered, however, that the searches were done after the accused had left the female toilet, gone into the gents toilet and cubicle and later emerged from the gents toilet. I accepted the DPPs submission that accused had sufficient opportunity to dispose of the mirror before he was searched (page 119 of the NE). The fact that the mirror was not found subsequently, after the searches, did not mean that PW2 did not see it in the cubicle occupied by the accused. I found as a fact that there was a mirror placed flat on the shoe in the cubicle occupied by the accused while PW2 was changing out of her uniform in the next cubicle.
86. This finding effectively debunked the defence that the accused had accidentally or mistakenly entered the ladies toilet and remained in the cubicle for at least two minutes before he emerged in the presence of PW2, PW3 and PW4. As aptly submitted by the learned DPP, the accused had entered the ladies toilet "equipped with a mirror". The defence vehemently denied this. Presumably the defence realised that if the accused had entered the ladies toilet by mistake in his urgency because of his diarrhoea, it was incredible that he would have placed a mirror flat on his shoe while relieving himself, after he had soiled his underwear.
87. The accuseds version as to why he had mistaken the ladies toilet for the gents in view of the positions of the toilets, the different colour of the walls and partitions of the toilets and, generally, the unfamiliar surrounding he was in when inside the cubicle in the ladies toilet, was defied belief and was a fanciful one. In particular, it was illogical that he could overshoot or pass the gents toilet before entering the ladies toilet, if he was in great haste to relieve himself. His explanation for not using the internal toilet at 5.30 pm, when he then had the irresistible urge to relieve himself was difficult to accept in the first place. From his Managers evidence, the floor of the internal toilet was wet because the sink pipe was leaking. The accused and DW3 had occasion to use the internal toilet that same day at 4.10 pm (page 59 of the NE). He had used the cubicle of the internal toilet for passing motion at 4.10 pm and before (page 73 of the NE). It did not stand to reason that the accused had the time or presence of mind to consider the wetness or dirtiness of the floor of the internal toilet when he wanted to relieve himself urgently and then decide to go all the way to the external, lobby toilet instead. His explanation that he considered that there was no handicapped cubicle in the internal toilet where he could clean himself at 5.30 pm was also implausible as he was then in a state of urgency. Surely there was water in the toilet. In fact the toilet was said to be wet.
88. Having found that the accused had placed the mirror on his shoe when he was inside the cubicle of the ladies toilet, I inferred that the accused had entered the ladies toilet and cubicle with intent to peep at the ladies using the toilet. PW2 was changing out of her uniform. There was overwhelming evidence that PW2 was in fact annoyed by the presence of the accused inside the ladies toilet. There was no merit at all in the accuseds defence of accident or mistake. Guided by the pronouncements in Seah Koon Seongs and Pardeep Singhs cases quoted earlier, I inferred from the surrounding circumstances in this case that the accused had intended to annoy PW2 who was using the ladies toilet cubicle.
89. I found that the prosecution has proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt and the accused had not managed to rebut the prosecutions case. I had no hesitation in finding the accused guilty and he was convicted on the charge.

SENTENCE
90. Criminal trespass is punishable with a maximum term of three months imprisonment and a maximum fine of $500 or both.
91. The accused was a first offender. Counsel initially did not want to make any plea in mitigation and the accused was wholly unrepentant, maintaining that he was not guilty. It was only after I asked whether he had anything to say in mitigation of sentence that he indicated in the affirmative. He had graduated from the NUS in June 2000, before the offence was committed. He claimed to be the sole breadwinner of his family, supporting his two parents and a younger brother who was also studying at the NUS. Counsel submitted:
"In view of his impoverishment, I plead with the Court not to impose a heavy fine".
92. The normal sentence for this offence was a fine of $500. As the accused did not appear to be remorseful and he could not afford to pay a "heavy fine", I sentenced him to a short term of two weeks imprisonment.
93. The accused had served more than half of his term before he filed this appeal against his conviction. He has currently completed serving his two weeks imprisonment.

Zainol Abeedin bin Hussin
District Judge"


justice_bz_detail.jpg
 
Last edited:

uncleyap

Alfrescian
Loyal
In my opinion, 李显龙玩女人 actually flattered that Ass Loong Son.:p

She should had written 李显龙被女人玩 instead!

I mean - look at his wife, more man than him! So I am sure it is in fact the reverse of what she wrote. :p:biggrin:
 

drifter

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
In my opinion, 李显龙玩女人 actually flattered that Ass Loong Son.:p

She should had written 李显龙被女人玩 instead!

I mean - look at his wife, more man than him! So I am sure it is in fact the reverse of what she wrote. :p:biggrin:

dont you know his wife is into SM ? :wink:
 

myo539

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: Disgracing Opposition parties

bobian ...election coming ..they have to obey their master cause . master who put the food outside their kennel ..

If PAP supporters are dogs, then the opposition must be foxes - sly, crafty, opportunistic - like this thread starter who videotape in female toilets! Since he can't get evidence of any PAP candidates in hotel rooms like Anwar, he has to create some fiction in female toilets! His next episode would be some scribblings in boy's toilets - he just had to rub off the last "A" - PAPA.

What else would he be filming in the female toilet?
 
Last edited:

drifter

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Re: Disgracing Opposition parties

If PAP supporters are dogs, then the opposition must be foxes - sly, crafty, opportunistic - like this thread starter who videotape in female toilets! Since he can't get evidence of any PAP candidates in hotel rooms like Anwar, he has to create some fiction in female toilets! His next episode would be some scribblings in boy's toilets - he just had to rub off the last "A" - PAPA.

What else would he be filming in the female toilet?

http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?89669-this-is-not-the-time-to-pull-down-any-opps-party-...
 

cooleo

Alfrescian
Loyal
In my opinion, 李显龙玩女人 actually flattered that Ass Loong Son.:p

She should had written 李显龙被女人玩 instead!

I mean - look at his wife, more man than him! So I am sure it is in fact the reverse of what she wrote. :p:biggrin:

You dare to tell this in front of Ass Loong? He will make sure you meet more friends who are more manly than u inside Changi hostel.
 

saratogas

Alfrescian
Loyal
I suggest you pay Changi Village a visit... The toilet there may have some Ah Qua's sharing written on the wall with some VIPs!
 

streetsmart73

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
In my opinion, 李显龙玩女人 actually flattered that Ass Loong Son.:p

She should had written 李显龙被女人玩 instead!

I mean - look at his wife, more man than him! So I am sure it is in fact the reverse of what she wrote. :p:biggrin:

hi there


1. uncle, not only the butch.
2. just take a good look at the rich/poor/lonely princess.
3. more than man too!
 
Top