MP Hri Kumar speaks out against court decision on Woffles Woo light sentence

[joetys]

"Three" but take away the "T" (for thosai) and you're good to go

Thank you Samaj. I've heard of Hari Krishna but nor Hri Kuma though.

I suspect when they saw the name, they panicked and just buried it. The Police certainly need to explain why they had not acted in the first instance,

But we are so used to police no need to answer and bochap how does one make them chap?

[Confuseous]

What Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) needs to explain

It helps, when directing our ire towards the AGC, to be aware of several of the possible charges that could have been brought against Woffles.

From reports in the Straits Times (which, unfortunately, have not been particularly clear about the precise charge that was brought), it seems that Woffles was charged with abetting the giving of "False information, with intent to cause a public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person" under Section 182 of the Penal Code. Under Section 182, the possible range of sentences is:

"imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to $5,000, or with both."

A possible charge for an offence with a similar fact situation could also be giving false information respecting an offence committed under Section 203 of the Penal Code:

"Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, gives any information respecting that offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both."

Alternatively (and this is the clearest alternative charge in the case of Woffles), AGC could proceed on the charge of obstructing, preventing, perverting or defeating course of justice under Section 204A of the Penal Code.

"Whoever intentionally obstructs, prevents, perverts or defeats the course of justice shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, or with fine, or with both."

From the above, it is clear that Section 182 is the lowest order offence.

When deciding which charge to bring, AGC weighs the evidence and gravity of the facts in the alleged offence as well as representations by Defence Counsel.

The correct question for the public to put to AGC then is this: what were the factors that led you to decide on a section 182 charge?

And why on earth was Woffles charged with abetting an offence when he was in the driver’s seat (metaphorically and literally), having asked his employee to take the rap?

These questions need to be answered by the AGC with due regard to public anger at the spectacle of a very well known man asking his elderly employee to take the rap getting charged with a lower order crime than others in a similar situation.

Full arguments here: http://theonlinecitizen.com/2012/06/...ffles-wu-case/