Re: [Singapore] - Car vs Bicycle road rage, both have video evidence to back themselv
Advice for the car driver. Lodge a magistrate complaint against the driver for committing an offence under Section 13A(1)(a) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Cap 184).
There are many case laws that you can reference and below is just one of them for a start:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Prosecutor v Tan Ming Shung
[2004] SGMC 10
| Suit No: | MAC 8594/2003, 8595/2003, 8596/2003, MA 74/2004 |
| Decision Date: | 26 Aug 2004 |
| Court: | Magistrates Court |
| Coram: | Wong Li Tien |
| Counsel: | Insp Sekaran Erulandy for public prosecutor, Mr G. Raman (G. Raman and Partners) for accused |
26 August 2004
Magistrate Wong Li Tein:
1 This is an appeal against conviction and sentence by Tan Ming Shung (“the accused”) for three charges relating to a minor road incident. The accused faced the following charges:
First Charge (“P1”)
You, Tan Ming Shung, M/41 Yrs, NRIC No. S1521946G, are charged that you, on the 15th day of February 2001, at or about 10.10pm, along Sixth Avenue opposite the ‘7-Eleven’ store, Singapore, did commit mischief, to wit, by kicking and causing a dent mark at the driver’s door of vehicle registration number SCK 6519M belonging to one William Goh Boon Chwee, a damage amounting to S$880/-, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 427 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).
Second Charge (“P2”)
You, Tan Ming Shung, M/41 yrs, NRIC No. S1521946G, are charged at you, on the 15th day of February 2001, at or about 10.13pm, along Sixth Avenue opposite the ‘7-Eleven’ store, Singapore, did intend to insult the modesty of one Teo Lee Hoon, Serene, to wit, by saying ‘
lam Pa’ (meaning testicles in Hokkien), intending that such word shall be heard by the said Teo Lee Hoon Serene, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 509 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).
Third Charge (“P3”)
You, Tan Ming Shung, M/41 yrs, NRIC No. S1521946G, are charged that you, on the 15th day of February 2001, at or about 10.30pm, along Upper Bukit Timah Road, outside Esso petrol kiosk, Singapore, did use abusive words to one William Goh Boon Chwee, to wit, by saying, ‘fuck you’ in English, with intent to cause alarm to the said William Goh Boon Chwee, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 13A(1)(a) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Cap 184).
2 At the end of the trial, I convicted the Accused of all three charges and sentenced him as follows:
On P1 - six weeks’ imprisonment;
On P2 - a fine of $2000.00 with four weeks’ imprisonment in default; and
On P3 - a fine of $1000.00 with two weeks in default.
3 There was a fourth charge against the Accused under section 342 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) for wrongful confinement. I ordered a discharge amounting to an acquittal against the Accused on this charge on the application of the prosecution at the end of the trial.
4 Being dissatisfied with my decision, the Accused has appealed against both his conviction and sentence.
The Case for the Prosecution
5 The prosecution called a total of four witnesses to the stand. Investigating Officer Staff Sergeant Then Yen Loong (“IO Then”) took the stand first, followed by Mdm Serene Teo Lee Hoon (“Mdm Teo”), her son Mr Aaron Joel Goh (“Aaron”) and her husband, the complainant, Mr William Goh (“Mr Goh”). The evidence of the prosecution witnesses are set out below.
Testimony of PW1 – IO Then Yen Loong (“IO Then”)
6 IO Then is an investigating officer from Clementi Police Division and has been with the investigation branch for about four years. Through IO Then, photographs taken of the damage to the complainant’s car was admitted as evidence. He was cross-examined on the process of his investigation
vis-a-viz the four charges against the Accused.
Testimony of PW2 – Mdm Serene Teo Lee Hoon (“Mdm Teo”)
7 Mdm Teo is the Head of the creative department of an advertising agency. On 15 February 2001 at about 10.00pm, she was in the car with her husband, the complainant Mr Goh, and their two sons, Aaron and Audi. She was in the front passenger seat of the car driven by Mr Goh, while her two sons were in the back seat of the car. The registration number of their car, a Rover, is SCK 6519M. They were travelling along Dunearn Road after dinner as her sons wanted to go to the S.A.M. machine at Sixth Avenue to pay some bills. As they were travelling along Dunearn Road towards Sixth Avenue, Mr Goh had to do a U-turn at Eng Neo Road and filtered to the left. The traffic at that time was heavy and so he took a bit of time to do that.
8 Mdm Teo told the court that as her husband, Mr Goh, was filtering to the left, suddenly a car on the left of their car cut into their lane in front and braked suddenly. As a result, Mr Goh had to jam on the brake of his car as well. He then honked at the car in front and they moved on. About two to three metres down the road, the driver of the car in front braked suddenly again. Mr Goh then braked his car again and honked at him. At this point, they were just in front of the turning into Sixth Avenue.
9 The driver of the car in front then got out of the car and came to the back to speak to Mr Goh. As this caused a traffic jam behind their car, Mr Goh told the driver to move into Sixth Avenue to talk there. The driver agreed and they both drove to the spot outside the 7-Eleven store along Sixth Avenue. Mdm Teo identified the driver of the car to be the Accused.
10 Mdm Teo told the court that when the Accused came out of his car after stopping outside the 7-Eleven store, he already looked very agitated as he came over to ask Mr Goh to get out of the car. Since he was shouting, Mdm Teo told her husband not to get out of the car as she sensed that there was going to be trouble. She so advised her husband as he was suffering from high blood pressure and she did not want him to become agitated as well.
11 Mdm Teo then saw the Accused kick the driver’s door of the car with his foot and punch the window at the driver’s side. He shouted vulgarities at her husband, Mr Goh, and called him a “
fucking coward”. He kept challenging Mr Goh to come out of the car but heeding his wife’s advice, Mr Goh refused to. Mdm Teo then quickly told her sons at the back seat to go out and pay their bills at the S.A.M. machine nearby so as to spare them from having to watch the “
ugly scene”.
12 After her sons left the car, Mdm Teo opened her car door and got out. She stood behind the car door and said to the Accused, who was still at the driver’s side, “
You have no right to punch and kick my car.” The Accused then came over and stood very close to her, his face almost touching her nose, and shouted at her “
lam pa”. In fact, he was so close that she recalled that he had a mole on his chin. Upon hearing him shout, her sons ran back to the car. She told them to get into the car and close the car door, which they did.
13 When she and her family were all in the car, the accused spat on the windscreen of the car near the driver’s side. He then smeared his spittle all over the windscreen with his hand and climbed on top of the car bonnet. He sat on the car bonnet, lay down on it and even bounced on it. Thereafter, he got off and used his shirt to wipe his saliva off the windscreen. He took a few steps backwards, stood in front of the car and made a gesture by pointing to his temple, then pointing to his groin and made a sign to signal that there was none. Mdm Teo told the court that the gestures were meant to tell Mr Goh “
you don’t have the balls”.
14 They then drove off. The Accused got into his car and followed them. As Mr Goh did not want the Accused to find out where they lived, he first passed the Courts building along Bukit Timah Road towards St. Joseph’s Church. At the church, Mr Goh asked Mdm Teo to go home with one of their sons first. He then stopped the car to let her and Aaron alight. When he stopped his car, the Accused also stopped his car behind them. Mdm Teo then took bus number 75 home with Aaron. After she reached home, Mr Goh called to tell her that everything was all right and that the Accused had decided to move off. He came home shortly after that with their other son Audi.
Testimony of PW3 – Mr Aaron Joel Goh (“Aaron”)
15 Aaron is 24 years old and is the older son of the complainant Mr Goh and Mdm Teo. He is currently an intern with Goldman Sachs.
16 On 15 February 2001 at about 10.00pm, he and his family had just had dinner at Chong Chin Lan Road when he told his father, Mr Goh, that he needed to pay his mobile phone bill. They decided to go in Mr Goh’s car to the S.A.M. machine outside the post office at Sixth Avenue. His father drove the car, with his mother Mdm Teo in the front passenger seat. Aaron and his younger brother, Audi, were in the backseat of the car. At that time, Mr Goh drove a Rover with car registration number SCK 6519M.
17 Mr Goh drove along Bukit Timah Road and made a U-turn at Eng Neo Road. After making the turn, he tried to filter left in order to enter the slip road at Sixth Avenue. Suddenly, a car came up very quickly from behind them and overtook their car from the left side. Mr Goh then honked at this car and drove behind it so that both cars were now on the extreme left lane of the road. The driver of this car then braked suddenly, causing Mr Goh to honk at him. The driver then stopped his car right before the slip road of Sixth Avenue, holding up the traffic behind him. He got out of his car and approached Mr Goh at the driver’s side. Aaron identified the driver of this car to be the Accused.
18 The accused asked Mr Goh what the problem was. Mr Goh answered that since they were causing a traffic jam behind them, they should move aside if he wanted to discuss the matter. The Accused then got back into his car and drove into Sixth Avenue. Mr Goh did the same and stopped the car opposite the post office along Sixth Avenue.
19 At this point, the Accused got out of his car again and approached Mr Goh on the driver’s side of the car. The Accused challenged Mr Goh to get out of the car but Mr Goh refused to do so. According to Aaron, the Accused then started calling Mr Goh a “
fucking coward” and said that he had “
no balls” to face him. The Accused proceeded to kick the door of the car on the driver’s side and punch the window.
20 Upon his mother’s instruction, Aaron and his younger brother got out of the car and went to pay their bills at the post office, which was about 50 metres away. After doing so, he heard the Accused shouting loudly at his mother, so he ran back across the street with his brother and got into the car. At this stage, the accused climbed on top of their car bonnet and sat on it. He leaned on the windscreen of the car and stayed in that position for about five minutes. Mr Goh then told the Accused that if he wanted to settle the matter, he should follow their car. The Accused got off Mr Goh’s car and went back into his own car. Mr Goh then drove on and made a turn at Anamalai Avenue along Sixth Avenue and out into Bukit Timah Road towards Holland Road, with the Accused following behind.
21 After driving some distance, Mr Goh dropped Aaron and his mother off at the side of the road and told them to take a bus home first. Aaron saw that while they were alighting, the Accused was still following them. He then took a bus home with his mother. His father came back later that night with his brother. The next day, he saw a dent in the driver’s door of his father’s car.
Testimony of PW4 – Mr William Goh (“Mr Goh”)
22 The complainant, Mr Goh, is 50 years old and a businessman. He made a police report on 17 February 2001 (“P9”) setting out events that occurred on 15 February 2001 at about 10.00pm relating to this case.
23 On 15 February 2001 at about 10.00pm, Mr Goh was on the way to Sixth Avenue after dinner because his sons wanted to pay bills at the S.A.M. machine outside the post office located there. He drove his car, registration number SCK 6519M, which was a dark green 820 series Rover, with his wife Mdm Teo in the front passenger seat and his two sons in the rear passenger seat. He was on Dunearn Road and made a left turn into Bukit Timah Road to get to Sixth Avenue. Bukit Timah Road is a three-lane road. He made a turn at Eng Neo Drive into the centre lane of Bukit Timah Road and wanted to filter into the extreme left lane. About 30 to 40 metres after turning into Bukit Timah Road, the road broadens into four lanes, with the extreme left one leading to the turning into Sixth Avenue. He had already signalled to filter left.
24 In the process of filtering left, there were two cars on his left and he let them pass first. Before he could get to the extreme left lane, another car suddenly came up very quickly from behind him and overtook him. Mr Goh described it as being so close as to be a “near-accident” because they nearly collided. Instinctively, Mr Goh honked at the driver of this car. By now Mr Goh’s car was behind this car on the extreme left lane. The driver of this car then jammed on his brakes so that Mr Goh had to brake hard. As they drove on towards the turning into Sixth Avenue, the driver of this car jammed on his brakes another two times in front of Mr Goh.
25 When the driver of this car stopped for the third time, Mr Goh honked at him again. Just before turning into Sixth Avenue, the driver of this car stopped his car in front of Mr Goh’s car, causing all the cars behind him to have to stop. The driver got out of the car, approached Mr Goh on the driver’s side and told him to get out of the car. Mr Goh refused and instead shut the door. As traffic was building up behind him, he signalled to the driver to move on and park at the side where Sixth Avenue was. The driver then drove on and parked along Sixth Avenue while Mr Goh parked behind him. This was about 15 to 20 metres after the turning into Sixth Avenue, across the road from the 7-Eleven store. The driver was identified by Mr Goh to be the Accused.
26 As soon as they parked, the Accused got out of the car and came towards Mr Goh. The Accused asked him to get out of the car, but because his wife Mdm Teo told him to stay put in the car, Mr Goh decided to lock the car door and stay inside his car. He told his sons to go and pay their bills at the S.A.M. machine nearby as intended. The Accused again told Mr Goh to come out of the car but he refused. The Accused then “
banged” on the window of the driver’s door. He climbed onto the bonnet of Mr Goh’s car and bounced on it. He then made “
monkey faces” at Mr Goh. Then he got off the car and asked Mr Goh to come out of the car again. He used words such as “
fucking coward” at Mr Goh. When Mr Goh refused, the Accused spat on the windscreen of the car and kicked the side of the car. After that, he used his T-shirt to wipe his spittle away.
27 At this point, Mdm Teo opened the car door and told the Accused that he had no right to do what he was doing and to “
stop his nonsense”. The Accused then shouted expletives at Mdm Teo, came very close to her and shouted more and more expletives at her. He also shouted at her the words “
lam pa”.
28 His sons then came back to the car. After his sons got into the car, Mr Goh wound down his window slightly and told the Accused that if he wanted to, they could settle the matter elsewhere. According to Mr Goh, his intentions were to lure the Accused to a Neighbourhood Police Post as the Accused’s actions made it impossible for Mr Goh to move his car away. The Accused agreed.
29 Mr Goh then drove off and turned into Anamalai Avenue, off Sixth Avenue. From there he turned into Bukit Timah Road towards Upper Bukit Timah Road where he lived. But he did not want to go home as he did not want the Accused to know where they lived. So he drove to Chestnut Avenue near St. Joseph’s Church and asked Mdm Teo and Aaron to take a bus home first. The accused was following behind his car all the way. When Mr Goh drove on after St. Joseph’s Church, the Accused continued following him.
30 After a short while, the Accused decided to overtake Mr Goh’s car. Mr Goh then made a U-turn after reaching Bukit Panjang, onto Upper Bukit Timah Road. Just after the U-turn is an Esso petrol kiosk and he saw the Accused driving in there. Mr Goh then stopped his car at the side, to call Mdm Teo to tell her that everything was all right and that he was coming home soon. At the same time, he was hoping that a police patrol car would come by so that he could make a police report on what had just happened.
31 However, at this juncture, the Accused saw Mr Goh’s car at the side of the road and walked over to him. The Accused started banging on the front passenger’s door with both fists and said to Mr Goh “
fuck you”. He then spat on the windscreen of Mr Goh’s car again and again and used his T-shirt to wipe the spittle away. He then pointed to his groin and gestured to Mr Goh to say that Mr Goh had “
no balls”. After that, the Accused went back to his car and drove off. Mr Goh then drove home.
32 After the incident, Mr Goh discovered that the kick on the driver’s door of his car caused a slight dent in the body of the car just below the trim. The window of the driver’s door also produced a rattling noise whenever the car was driven. He sent his car to the Rover car workshop for an assessment and was informed by the workshop that repairing the car would cost $880.00. The quotation from the Rover car workshop is marked as exhibit P8. However, Mr Goh did not want to have the repairs as he felt that it was too expensive and he was planning to sell the car in any event. The car was finally sold about a year after the incident.
The Close of the Prosecution’s Case
33 At the close of the prosecution’s case, I applied the test in
Hwa Tua Tau v PP [1980-1981] SLR 73 and was satisfied that a
prima facie case has been made against the accused on each element of the charges for which the Accused faced, which if unrebutted, would warrant a conviction. Accordingly, I administered the standard allocution to the Accused and called for the Defence. The Accused elected to give evidence.
The Case for the Defence
34 Other than the Accused, there were no other witnesses for the Defence.
Testimony of the Accused Tan Ming Shung (“the Accused”)
35 The Accused is an architect by profession and lives at Lantana Avenue. According to the Accused, on 15 February 2001 at about 10.00pm, he was heading home from Eng Neo Avenue in his car, registration number SBC 4294C. He was on the extreme left lane along Eng Neo Avenue when he noticed a dark green Rover speeding into the first lane on Bukit Timah Road from Eng Neo Avenue. This car was driven by Mr Goh. As this was during the Chinese New Year period, traffic was still heavy in that area during that time.
36 The Accused noticed the car driven by Mr Goh overtaking several cars as Mr Goh signalled his intentions to filter left. He felt that the drivers of the other cars were unhappy with Mr Goh’s “
aggressive maneuvers” on the road and kept a close distance between them to prevent Mr Goh from entering their lane. The Accused decided to maintain a safe distance from the vehicle in front. However, because of this safe distance, Mr Goh tried to filter in between his car and the car in front so that he had to swerve to the left. He was displeased with the way Mr Goh drove, feeling that just because he had maintained the safe distance, Mr Goh “
took advantage of him”.
37 The Accused did not give way to Mr Goh’s car and felt that because of this, Mr Goh drove close to him to
“intimidate” him. Mr Goh also honked at him but he still refused to give way. Through the rear view mirror, the accused then saw Mr Goh driving behind his car into the extreme left lane. At this time, Mr Goh honked and flashed the headlights at him. Mr Goh continued to honk and flash the headlights at him even after they had both turned into Sixth Avenue.
38 Because he was curious as to why Mr Goh had behaved the way he did, the Accused decided to
“take the initiative” to pull over at the 7-Eleven store along Sixth Avenue and speak with Mr Goh. He got out of the car and approached Mr Goh, whose car was parked behind his. He asked Mr Goh what the problem was but Mr Goh replied with a “
fuck you”. He then informed Mr Goh that people could see his driving methods for themselves. Mr Goh replied with “
Are you fucking blind? You can’t see my attempt to go into your lane?”
39 As the Accused tried to reason with Mr Goh, Mr Goh “
twisted facts and changed topics”. Mdm Teo, the front seat passenger, then came out of the car and shouted at him that he was of poor upbringing. The Accused tells the court that he was unhappy with Mr Goh and Mdm Teo for their behaviour at this point, but controlled himself and did not use vulgarities on them. He calmly “
feedback” to Mdm Teo that he was talking to the driver and not to her. However, she kept siding with Mr Goh while he directed his attention back to Mr Goh.
40 The Accused noticed that there were two young men at the backseat. One of them, whom he identified as Aaron, got out of the car and said to him, “
Don’t shout at my mother!”. Upon seeing their “
prejudices”, the Accused claims that he then decided to “
humble down” as he did not want the situation to get out of hand. He told Aaron
“I’m trying to focus. No harm intended to your mum”. Aaron then “
sensed [his] sincerity” and calmed down.
41 The Accused once again turned his attention to Mr Goh. He saw that Mr Goh was agitated and was making the same arguments. Because he was outnumbered, the Accused simply listened. When Mdm Teo and Aaron got back into the car, Mr Goh was still talking to him and he “
just listened”.
42 Feeling dissatisfied with Mr Goh’s answer, the Accused pointed out his errors. At this point, Mdm Teo and her two sons got out of the car and proceeded towards Holland Road at the T-junction between Fifth Avenue and Sixth Avenue. They walked back and forth at that spot as though wondering what to do.
43 Mr Goh then said that if he wanted to settle the matter, the Accused should follow him. Mr Goh then drove off, picked up Mdm Teo and her two sons from the side of the road and made a turn at Anamalai Avenue to turn back to Bukit Timah Road. The Accused followed him. Mr Goh headed towards Upper Bukit Timah Road and dropped two persons off opposite Chestnut Avenue. Mr Goh then proceeded towards Woodlands Road, arriving at Yew Tee Industrial Estate.
44 After travelling such a long distance, the Accused felt that he did not want to pursue the matter any further and honked at Mr Goh to pull over. Mr Goh did not do so. The Accused then drove up alongside and asked him where he was leading them. Mr Goh stared at him hostilely, refused to answer and then suddenly smiled. Sensing that Mr Goh had no intention of responding, the Accused decided to drive off. They were in front of Yew Tee Industrial Estate.
45 As he drove off along Woodlands Road, the Accused noticed Mr Goh following him. Since he did not want Mr Goh to follow him home, he drove into the Esso petrol kiosk after the cross-junction of Choa Chu Kang and Bukit Panjang along Upper Bukit Timah Road. He felt that since there were other people around, Mr Goh would be discouraged from following him. However, when he drove into the petrol kiosk, he saw Mr Goh stopping his car in the middle of the road, in the second lane beside the petrol kiosk. Mr Goh remained in that position for 20 to 30 minutes as the traffic was lighter than at Sixth Avenue.
46 Mr Goh then smiled and gestured for the accused to come towards his car, which the Accused did despite being uncertain over Mr Goh’s sincerity. As soon as he went near, Mr Goh spat at him. The Accused then went back to his car and waited for an opportunity to drive off. He drove into the side road which was parallel to the main road. On seeing this, Mr Goh followed him so that the two cars were parallel to each other. The Accused then turned off his engine and lights so that he was hidden in the dim light of the side road. Mr Goh lost sight of him at that point and drove off. The Accused waited there for a while longer and finally drove home using an alternative route.
The Closing Submissions
Submissions from the Defence
47 The Defence denied the allegations made by the prosecution witnesses. It was pointed out that it was incredible that the Accused’s alleged kick could cause a dent in the driver’s door, as tremendous force had to be used since the car was a Rover. It was submitted that P8, which shows that the estimated costs of repair, should be regarded as hearsay evidence as the maker of the document was not called. Furthermore, Mr Goh had testified that he did not carry out the repairs on the car at all and continued driving the car in the state it was in until it was sold about a year later. It was submitted that this was unreasonable since the owner of the car would have wanted to repair his car in order to make it more sale-worthy.
48 On the second charge, it was submitted that in the context of the events that occurred, the Accused could not have intended to insult the modesty of Mdm Teo even if he had uttered the words “
lam pa”. The accused was challenging Mr Goh to get out of his car and therefore was confronting Mr Goh and nobody else in the car. The Defence pointed out that Aaron admitted in cross-examination that he could hear everything that transpired as he was only about 15 metres away. Yet he did not hear the accused shouting “
lam pa”, only that there was loud shouting.
49 On the third charge, the Defence highlighted that the original third charge stated that the offence took place along Sixth Avenue opposite the 7-Eleven store. The venue was amended by the prosecution at the close of prosecution’s case. This showed that Mr Goh must have given a different set of facts to the police. Mr Goh had a cell phone with him but he did not call the police there and then. In fact, some matters stated by him in Court were left out in his police report marked exhibit P9.
50 In general, the credibility of the prosecution witnesses was disputed. It was submitted that Mr Goh had displayed arrogance, provocation and “
cheekiness” whilst giving evidence in Court. On the other hand, Counsel for Defence urged the Court to consider that the Accused’s evidence was clear and consistent. He was “
puny compared to [Mr Goh]” and could not have been asking for a fight.
Submissions from the Prosecution
51 The Prosecution submitted that the fact that the Accused was present at the two locations at the times stated in the charges was not disputed. The defence is merely a bare denial of the acts stated in the charges. It was submitted that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are inherently credible and should be believed.
52 With respect to the first charge, the fact that the Accused had kicked the driver’s door of Mr Goh’s vehicle was witnessed by Mr Goh, Mdm Teo and their son Aaron. This caused a dent at the driver’s door, which resulted in a rattling sound from the window whenever the car is driven. They had also gotten an estimation of the repair costs for the car door, which was stated as $880.00 in exhibit P8. Apart from the Accused’s act of kicking the door, Mr Goh and Mdm Teo also saw him spitting on the windscreen of the car, punching the driver’s door window and sitting on the bonnet.
53 Pertaining to the second charge, both Mr Goh and Mdm Teo testified that the Accused uttered vulgarities at Mdm Teo. Mr Goh, Mdm Teo and Aaron also heard the Accused shouting “
you fucking coward” at Mr Goh. Later in the same evening along Upper Bukit Timah Road somewhere outside the Esso petrol kiosk, the Accused also uttered the words “
fuck you” directed at Mr Goh.
54 The Prosecution pointed out that the Accused had testified during cross-examination that Mr Goh had stopped his car in the middle of the road along Upper Bukit Timah Road and called him over. It was submitted that it was highly improbable that a person would stop his vehicle in the middle of the road even if the traffic was light because of the likelihood of an accident.
55 The Prosecution submitted that the prosecution witnesses are candid and truthful, and their testimonies remained unshakened during cross-examination. They had no reason to fabricate false evidence against the Accused as they did not know him prior to this incident. Mr Goh lodged a police report on the events of the evening soon after the incident, whereas the Accused never did so. He did not relate to the police what happened that day, but yet could remember a lot of things in court. This indicated that the Accused’s version of facts in court was an afterthought.
The Decision of the Court
56 This is a case whereby the account of events of the night in question by the Accused differs greatly from the account given by three of the prosecution’s witnesses. Essentially, the allegations of the complainant Mr Goh, Mdm Teo and Aaron are met with bare denial by the Accused. This being so, I am mindful that close scrutiny of the testimonies given by the witnesses is necessary.
57 In the case of
Farida Begam d/o Mohd Artham v PP [2001] 4 SLR 610, the learned Chief Justice Yong Pung How held that the credibility of a witness can be based on some or all of the following, namely (i) his demeanour; (ii) the internal consistency (or lack thereof) in the content of his evidence; and (iii) the external consistency (or lack thereof) between the content of his evidence and extrinsic evidence such as the evidence of other witnesses.
58 It is with the test found in
Farida’s case in mind that I approached the evidence of witnesses in this case.
Events prior to Parties stopping along Sixth Avenue
59 The Accused’s evidence on the events which occurred along Bukit Timah Road just before parties entered Sixth Avenue differs materially from the evidence given by Mr Goh, Mdm Teo and Aaron. The events prior to the stop along Sixth Avenue sets the stage for which parties would be involved in a confrontation just moments later.
60 According to the Accused, Mr Goh had driven in a
“rude and reckless” manner in trying to cut into his lane and, when unable to do so, continually honked and flashed the headlights at the Accused. When the accused drove into Sixth Avenue, Mr Goh followed. He then “
took the initiative” to find out what was bothering Mr Goh and slowed down to pull over along Sixth Avenue. He then got out of his car to approach Mr Goh who had parked behind him. According to the prosecution witnesses, the accused was the one who drove at high speed past their car to the front of them and then braked suddenly several times for no apparent reason. The Accused stopped his car just before the turning into Sixth Avenue to confront Mr Goh, and only agreed to move on into Sixth Avenue when Mr Goh told him to do so due to the traffic jam they were causing.
61 Having considered the testimonies of witnesses in totality, I find the account given by prosecution witnesses to be the accurate and logical explanation of how parties ended up with Mr Goh parked behind the Accused along Sixth Avenue. That the Accused had driven in front of Mr Goh’s vehicle at fast speed and braked dangerously at least twice was observed by not just Mr Goh, but also Mdm Teo and Aaron, who were in the car at the same time. All three of them saw the Accused stopping his car in the middle of the extreme left lane just before the turning into Sixth Avenue to confront Mr Goh, resulting in Mr Goh having to ask him to turn into Sixth Avenue to talk because of the traffic blockage caused. I accept the explanation given by the prosecution witnesses as to why they chose to stop their car where they did along Sixth Avenue: to allow Aaron and his brother to pay their bills at the S.A.M. machine outside the post office as they had earlier intended. After meeting with a driver such as the Accused, it would be killing two birds with a stone to park at that spot since the Accused had wanted to speak with Mr Goh as well.
62 On the other hand, I find the entire sequence of events recounted by the Accused to be nothing but an attempt to cover up his unfriendly intent to create trouble for Mr Goh because he was displeased with the way Mr Goh had filtered his car to the left side of the road. That he was so overwhelmed with negative sentiments towards Mr Goh, whom he did not even know, is evident from the way he described how he refused to allow Mr Goh to filter into his lane, what he guessed Mr Goh’s reaction was, and how he continued to observe Mr Goh’s car even after Mr Goh managed to filter left as he needed to. The Accused stated in examination-in-chief:
“The Rover driver was unsuccessful in cutting into lane C and was holding up traffic behind him…Out of
desperation, he saw the safe distance I had in front of me, he
charged in whereby I had to swerve to the left….the Rover seems to be
quite desperate but I had the same feeling and
displeasure with the way he maneuvered. It was
rude and
reckless. Also, just because I had the safe distance, the driver of the Rover gave me the impression that he
could take advantage of me.” [emphasis mine]
63 The Accused goes on to tell the court three times during examination-in-chief that Mr Goh tried to “
intimidate” him because he refused to give way. When Mr Goh managed to move into the extreme left lane behind the Accused, the Accused continued to watch Mr Goh’s car through the rear view mirror. According to the Accused:
“When he could not cut in front of me, he tried to cut behind me. It caught my attention and I looked at the rear view mirror at the Rover. I saw the car behind me stop about one and a half car lengths to allow the Rover to cut in. Watching the situation through the rear view mirror, I saw the car give more space for the Rover to enter lane D. When the Rover entered lane D, it honked and flashed its lights at me continuously. As it was a traffic jam, I felt that he was aggressive and I tolerated it. He continued honking and flashing even after we turned into Sixth Avenue.”
64 While it is true that Mr Goh was trying to filter left as soon as he got on Bukit Timah Road, I am not convinced that Mr Goh would drive recklessly, “
intimidate” the Accused or go as far as to keep honking and flashing his headlights at the Accused even after he managed to filter into the extreme left lane, just because the Accused did not give way to him. Unlike the Accused, who was alone, Mr Goh had his whole family in his car. They had just had dinner together and were leisurely on their way to Sixth Avenue to let Aaron and Audi pay their bills at the S.A.M. machine. It is inconceivable that Mr Goh would have driven in the manner described by the Accused and put the safety of his family in danger.
65 I find the reason given by the Accused as to why he stopped his car along Sixth Avenue and approached Mr Goh to be untruthful and incredible. He claims that he was curious as to why Mr Goh had behaved the way he did and took the initiative to slow down at Sixth Avenue and pulled over at the 7-Eleven store to speak with Mr Goh. In his own words:
“I was curious as to why the Rover driver was behaving this way. So I slowed down the car and realised that I needed to find an appropriate place to pull over and communicate with the Rover driver.”
66 He got out of the car and approached Mr Goh, who was parked behind him and whose car window was down. The Accused stated that his intention was
“…tofind out the problem and inform the driver [of] his actions earlier so we could understand and move on.”
67 I do not believe that this was why the Accused stopped his car and approached Mr Goh. I do not think there was a need for him to “
find out the problem” with Mr Goh in order to achieve some kind of understanding between them and move on. Without prior agreement, I do not understand the Accused’s explanation as to how the two cars came to stop one after the other so that he could simply approach Mr Goh to settle the problem. As such, I find the version of facts given by the Accused on the events prior to the stop along Sixth Avenue to be unreliable evidence in setting the stage for the confrontation that ensued.
Assessment of Prosecution Witnesses’ Testimonies
Mr Goh’s Evidence
68 Mr Goh is a businessman in his fifties and strikes me as a family man with no incentive to lie against the Accused. I say that he is a family man as, in recounting the incident on 15 February 2001, he made no secret of the fact that he constantly had the interest of his family members in mind. Firstly, he was going to Sixth Avenue in order to allow his sons to pay their bills. Secondly, when the Accused challenged him to get out of the car, he chose to heed his wife’s advice to stay inside instead of acting on impulse. Thirdly, as he drove off with the Accused following closely behind, he was mindful that he did not want to let the Accused know where he and his family lived to avoid trouble. Finally, even while he was intending to drive on to lead the Accused to a Neighbourhood Police Post, he let his wife and Aaron off first so that they could take a bus home. It is telling that he did not involve his sons in the quarrel with the Accused even though Aaron and Audi were in their early twenties, and could have stood up for their parents if they had been allowed to.
69 In giving his evidence in court, I found Mr Goh straightforward and composed even during cross-examination. Counsel submits that the Accused could not have wanted to pick a fight with Mr Goh as the accused is “
puny” compared to him. I do not agree with Counsel on this as I do not see such a difference in their sizes. The Accused is not much smaller than Mr Goh. In fact, by physical comparison, the Accused is at least a decade younger and leaner of limb than Mr Goh, and would have no difficulty in taking him on if he wanted to. Conversely, I find it more accurate to say that Mr Goh could not have wanted to pick a fight with the Accused because of his poor health condition at that time. Mr Goh and Mdm Teo confirmed that Mr Goh had a heart condition, high blood pressure and diabetes at the time of the offence. I do not believe that a man in that state of health would act aggressively and provoke the Accused to a fight the way the Accused had described.
70 I am also unable to agree with Counsel’s submission that Mr Goh displayed arrogance, provocation and “
cheekiness” while giving evidence in court. I saw Mr Goh answering questions to the best of his ability without any attempt to cloud issues with an exaggerated display of emotions. More importantly, his evidence is consistent in all material aspects with that of Mdm Teo and Aaron.
Mdm Teo’s Evidence
71 Mdm Teo heads the creative department in an advertising agency. In my view, she is a truthful witness from her candid demeanour while testifying in court, the consistency of her evidence throughout the trial as well as the consistency of her evidence with that of Mr Goh and Aaron. Mdm Teo strikes me as a well-educated, middle-aged lady who was shocked and indignant at the behaviour of the Accused on the night of 15 February 2001. She appeared slightly upset at certain points during the trial when describing the acts of the Accused. Even so, she was clear and coherent, and I find no reason for her to fabricate such incredible allegations against the Accused.
72 Like Mr Goh, I find that Mdm Teo was mindful of her family’s interest during the time that the Accused confronted her husband. She was quick-thinking in advising her husband not to get out of the car as she “
sensed trouble”. When the Accused continued with his display of thuggish behaviour, Mdm Teo told her sons to get out of the car and pay their bills as she did not want them to witness the “
ugly scene”. She also took it upon herself to tell the Accused to stop what he was doing when he punched and kicked the driver’s door, even though the Accused was acting aggressively. As such, I find her a truthful witness with no reason to implicate the accused falsely.
Aaron’s evidence
73 Aaron is 24 years old. In giving his evidence in court, he strikes me as a truthful witness. He has no reason to lie about what he saw on the night of 15 February 2001 and indeed, he candidly admitted that he could not hear what the Accused shouted at his mother although he was just 15 metres away. He had already admitted that he heard shouting. If he wanted to falsely corroborate his testimony with that of his parents, he could have easily chosen to lie on this very simple point. Instead, I saw in court a young man who was disinterested in lying about his observations and who was straightforward in giving his testimony despite being asked over and over during cross-examination what he heard while he was paying his bills at the S.A.M. machine.
Prompt complaint lodged
74 I also noted that Mr Goh promptly lodged a police report on the incident as soon as it was practicable for him to do so. This first information report, which was marked exhibit P9, is consistent in all material aspects with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in court.
75 It was put to Mr Goh during cross-examination that the first stop before the turning into Sixth Avenue never happened because Mr Goh had not mentioned it in P9. I note that this is so from P9, but I am of the view that this minor omission does not shake the strength of Mr Goh’s testimony. In fact, Mr Goh’s report states in fair detail the events of the evening of 15 February 2001 and contains all the salient points needed for the police to investigate this matter.
76 The first information report need not contain the entire case for the prosecution, but only what is sufficient to set police investigations in motion. The learned Chief Justice held in
Tan Pin Seng v PP [1998] 1 SLR 418,
“It is a misconception to regard the first information report or police report as a document which should contain the entire case for the prosecution. Its main purpose is merely to give information of a cognizable offence to the police so as to set them in motion. The form of the police report merely requires an informant to provide ‘brief details including date, time and place at which the offence occurred’. The form itself clearly does not contemplate that the informant or complainant should give elaborate details of the alleged offence.”
77 As explained by Mr Goh during cross-examination, he did not mention the first stop in P9 because the main action of the offence occurred along Sixth Avenue. This being a brief report, he stated only what he felt were the more important points. I accept Mr Goh’s explanation on this.
78 In its entirety, I found the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to be consistent with one another and inherently credible. In my view, Mdm Teo, Mr Goh and Aaron were forthright and truthful witnesses when giving evidence in court and remained unshakened during cross-examination. Mr Goh and Mdm Teo had the best interests of one another and their children in mind that night and had nothing to gain from fabricating allegations against the Accused as they did not know him at all prior to the incident and have not been in touch with him since. The fact that Mr Goh lodged a police report on the events of the night at his earliest convenience, which is consistent with the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, also reflects that he has given scrupulous evidence in court.
Assessment of the Accused’s Testimony
79 On the other hand, I find the Accused a most untruthful and unreliable witness.
80 The Accused is in his early forties and an architect by profession. I must point out that my impression of the Accused throughout his evidence in court is that he desperately wants to paint a good and respectable picture of himself in order to make his story more believable. However, it is clear to me that he is not the gentleman he portrays himself to be and will not hesitate to resort to deceit and violence when it so serves him.
81 I also note the internal inconsistencies in his evidence, in which he describes how the confrontation with Mr Goh started and continued all the way to the Esso petrol kiosk when he had to resort to hiding in the shadows of the night in order to shake off Mr Goh. As stated above, I am incredulous that it was necessary at all for him to stop along Sixth Avenue and approach Mr Goh to discuss the matter. Instead of a laudable move, I see it as nothing more than an attempt to create trouble for Mr Goh, who obviously did not stop by the side of the road with the same malicious intentions.
82 I am also incredulous of the Accused’s story of his being yelled at by Mr Goh, Mdm Teo and Aaron. The Accused paints himself as the victim of much prejudice as he spoke to Mr Goh, but I fail to see how a reasonable person in the shoes of the Accused would have wanted to persist in reasoning with Mr Goh if he had sensed mounting hostility. In those circumstances, he could not have wanted to follow Mr Goh’s car all the way to Yew Tee Industrial Estate just because Mr Goh said to follow him. I also do not understand how the Accused came to be spat at by Mr Goh along Upper Bukit Timah Road after that long futile drive. The Accused claims that he was duped into approaching Mr Goh’s car because of Mr Goh’s pretended friendliness. Bearing in mind that he had already been verbally abused by Mr Goh and family and then led on a long futile drive by this time, I do not believe that a well-educated man such as the Accused would have been so taken in by Mr Goh.
No Police Report Lodged
83 I find it suspicious that the accused had never lodged a police report regarding the alleged mistreatment by Mr Goh on the night of 15 February 2001. According to him, he was verbally abused by Mr Goh along Sixth Avenue and then spat at by Mr Goh at Upper Bukit Timah Road outside the Esso petrol kiosk barely minutes later. He was so terrified of Mr Goh, whom he claimed was following him, that he had to “
hide” in the dim side street parallel to the main road. Given the circumstances, I see no reason why the Accused should choose to let the matter rest without making a report to the police.
84 What is even more bizarre is that the Accused conceded that he did not state in his statements to the police what he had told the court. He was asked during cross-examination:
“Q: Did you tell all these facts to the IO?
A: No. Because I lost faith in officers handling the case.
Q: Don’t you think that by telling these facts, that will assist you tremendously?
A: Under normal circumstances, yes.”
85 This means that essentially, when the Accused was giving his recount of facts in court, it was the first time he was recounting it to anyone. When asked why he did not disclose full facts to the investigating officer even after he was charged, the Accused at first explained that it was because he had spent the night in a “
strange place” after his arrest and was in a daze the next morning when his statement was recorded. However, when further questioned, he admitted that there were in fact two statements recorded from him, one on 20 August 2001 and the second on 22 October 2001, and in neither of these statements did he disclose any of these facts to the police.
86 In re-examination, the Accused was asked by Counsel to explain why he had omitted to give the full facts to the police in his statements. The Accused then gave an elaborate explanation casting the blame on the investigating officer:
“Q: Any reasons why you did not disclose full facts to IO Then?
A: Because I trust the court to handle it fairly. He uttered a conflict of interest by asking me for a good paying job with no overtime.
He said in his job, he could not go further. And pointed to the pimples on his face. He even told me his resume.
I mentioned that I’m in the construction line. He said you’re an architect so your job must be paying you quite well.
The other reason is that he disregarded certain relevant facts where PW4 [Mr Goh] had over-reacted to give an impression. He disregarded it as irrelevant but it is relevant because I was co-operating with the IO to clarify.
He blurted out something which was evidence that he was trying to cover something, that PW4’s destination was Bukit Panjang. I was curious.”
87 If this was indeed what happened, I find it very strange that the Defence had never at any point put it as their case to IO Then when he was giving evidence on stand. Allegations of impropriety on the part of the investigating officer were never raised, not even when the Accused was asked in examination-in-chief about how he was arrested in relation to the present charges and how the investigating officer had dealt with the stood-down charge against him. The Accused also never indicated that he made a complaint against the investigation officer to his superiors and certainly did not try to ensure that his version of facts were fully aired when the prosecution was preparing its case against him.
88 I am not saying that just because the Accused never made a police report and never stated his case in his police statements, his version of facts must be untrue. I am mindful that in the case of
Tang Kin Seng v PP [1997] 1 SLR 46, the learned Chief Justice stated:
“The evidential value of a prompt complaint often lay not in the fact that the making it renders the victims testimony more credible. The evidential value of a previous complaint is that
the failure to make one renders the victims evidence less credible. The reason is simply common human experience. It is no usual human behavior for a victim not to make a quick complaint. However, as in all cases where common human experience is used as a yardstick, there may be very good reasons why the victims’ actions depart from it. It would then be an error not to have regard to the explanation proffered.” [emphasis mine]
89 However, in evaluating the evidence of the Aaccused in its totality, I must consider that the Aaccused made no prompt complaint to the police, made no attempts to disclose full facts either to the investigating officers or the prosecutor at any time even after he was charged, and has not proffered any credible explanation for failing to do so. The result is that I find that the version of facts testified to by the Accused in court to be an afterthought and not a true reflection of the facts as they occurred.
90 I now go on to explain my assessment of the evidence pertaining to the three charges which the Accused faced.
The First Charge
Could a kick cause a dent in Mr Goh’s car?
91 According to Mr Goh and Mdm Teo, the Accused approached Mr Goh and challenged him again and again to get out of the car. Mr Goh refused. This infuriated the Accused so much that he used vulgarities against Mr Goh and kicked the driver’s door of their car with his foot, causing a dent in the door. It was submitted by the Defence that it is impossible that a kick from the Accused’s foot could cause such a dent to Mr Goh’s car as his is a Rover, a sturdy British-made vehicle.
92 I have to say that such a dent is not apparent from the photographs tendered to the Court. However, that there was such a damage to the door was witnessed by Mr Goh, Mdm Teo and even Aaron after the incident. Obviously, whether a kick from the Accused’s foot could have caused such a dent to the side of the car would depend on the style of the kick and the force exerted by the Accused. The Accused was not bare-footed at that time. I accept that if sufficient force was used, especially in a fit of rage, such a dent could have been caused to the door of Mr Goh’s car.
Quotation by the Rover car workshop
93 The fact that such a dent was indeed caused is also evidenced by exhibit P8, a quotation by the Rover car workshop setting out the charges for repairs. Mr Goh testified that after the Accused caused a dent on the driver’s door of his car, the window made a rattling noise every time the car was driven. He had wanted to have the car repaired but the price quoted by the workshop at $880.00 was too high. He had intented to sell the car and so did not go through with the repairs. That there was such a damage to the car door did not prevent the car from being sold about a year after the incident. In my judgment, P8 corroborates the evidence given by prosecution witnesses that the Accused had kicked and punched the driver’s door of Mr Goh’s car, causing a dent.
The Second Charge
Utterance of “lam pa” to Mdm Teo
94 According to both Mdm Teo and Mr Goh, after the Accused kicked and punched the driver’s door of the car, Mdm Teo got out of the car, stood behind the door and told the Accused that he had no right to do what he did. The Accused then went from the right to the left of the car, stood very close to Mdm Teo and uttered the words “
lam pa” at her.
95 It was submitted by the Defence that in the context of what had allegedly happened that night, the Accused must have been dealing with Mr Goh rather than Mdm Teo. Therefore, even if he had shouted “
lam pa”, he must have said that to Mr Goh and not Mdm Teo, and therefore could not have intended to insult her modesty. Furthermore, that these words were uttered was not heard by Aaron, who was barely 15 metres away.
96 I do not agree with Counsel on this point. From the testimony of Mr Goh and Mdm Teo, it is clear that by the time Mdm Teo got out of the car, she had intended to address the Accused regarding his attack on their car. The Accused therefore directed his attention to her. In fact, he even went from the right to the left side of the car where she was standing and stood close to her. It was not a respectable distance; he stood so close to her that his face almost touched her nose, before uttering those words to her. I cannot describe the Accused’s behaviour in any way other than that he meant to intimidate Mdm Teo and insult her modesty.
Aaron did not hear the utterance
97 Aaron was asked if he heard the Accused shouting the words “
lam pa” to his mother, Mdm Teo. Aaron indicated that he did not as he could have been across the road at that time.
98 I do not think that just because Aaron did not hear those exact words, it meant that it was not uttered by the Accused. It is clear that Aaron was not simply standing 15 metres away across the road, but was there at the S.A.M. machine to pay his bills. His attention would have been on paying his bills rather than observing what was happening at his father’s car. Furthermore, the reason Mdm Teo had asked him and his brother to go to the S.A.M. was precisely that she did not want her sons to witness the ongoing scene. Hence I find it plausible that Aaron heard shouting but did not manage to hear exactly what the Accused shouted.
The Third Charge
Utterance of “fuck you” to Mr Goh
99 According to Mr Goh, he asked the Accused to follow his car in order to extricate his family from the situation wherein the acts of the Accused had prevented him from driving away from Sixth Avenue. He was hoping to lure the Accused to a police post and the Accused followed him. Along Chestnut Avenue where St. Joseph’s church was, he let Mdm Teo and Aaron off, and drove on with Audi in the car. After a distance, the Accused lost interest and made a U-turn into the Esso petrol kiosk along Upper Bukit Timah Road. Mr Goh then did the same thing and pulled up by the side of the road to make a phone call to his wife to inform her that everything was all right. At this point, the Accused came over to his car again and started banging on the front passenger’s door. He then said “
fuck you” to Mr Goh, spat on the windscreen of Mr Goh’s car again and again and used his T-shirt to wipe it away. He also gestured that Mr Goh had “
no balls”. After that, the Accused went back to his car and drove off.
100 It was submitted by the Defence on this charge that because the venue stated on the charge was amended during the trial, it casts doubt on the veracity of the allegation. I do not agree with this submission. Mr Goh did not say that the only time the Accused uttered the words “
fuck you” to him was along Upper Bukit Timah Road outside the Esso petrol kiosk. He told the court that even while they were at Sixth Avenue, when the Accused was trying to get him to come out of the car, the Accused was already using vulgarities on him. At the second location outside the petrol kiosk, the accused again used vulgarities on Mr Goh. It is the prosecution’s prerogative to proceed against the Accused for using those words at the location they eventually amended the charge to read. I do not see how any doubt is cast on Mr Goh’s evidence simply by this amendment.
101 I accept Mr Goh’s evidence that he had stopped his car by the side of the road outside the Esso petrol kiosk to make a phone call to his wife. Bearing in mind the Accused’s earlier behaviour at Sixth Avenue, I am not surprised if he continued to show thuggish behaviour against Mr Goh and his car at this second location. I believe that he did in fact say “
fuck you” to Mr Goh. On the other hand, I find the Accused’s story about how he was lured into approaching Mr Goh’s car, which was stopped in the middle of the road, and was then spat at by Mr Goh, to be unbelievable and a mere figment of his imagination.
Conclusion
102 In totality, I found that the Accused’s credibility was shaken by the prosecution witnesses’ version of the events. I do not believe the Accused’s story and find him an untruthful witness. For all the reasons stated above, I found that the Prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the Accused and convicted him on all three charges.
The Appeal against Sentence
103 The Accused is also appealing against his sentence imposed by me. He was sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment on P1, $2000.00 fine in default four weeks’ imprisonment on P2 and $1000.00 fine in default two weeks’ imprisonment on P3.
Mitigation
104 In mitigation, Defence Counsel urged me to consider that the Accused is a first offender. He is an architect, a professional, and therefore a conviction is sufficient punishment for him. For the offence under section 509 of the Penal Code, he had intended no sexual undertone in uttering “
lam pa” to Mdm Teo; it was merely an outburst. He was agitated and had committed the offences in a fit of anger. Counsel also highlighted that the vulgar utterance in the third charge is not uncommon and “happens everyday”.
First Charge (P1) under section 427 of the Penal Code
105 The offence under section 427 of the Penal Code, which applies where the offender causes loss or damage to the amount of $50.00 or upwards, is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Second Charge (P2) under section 509 of the Penal Code
106 The offence under section 509 of the Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Third Charge (P3) under section 13A(1)a) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act
107 The offence under section 13A(1)(a) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act is punishable with a maximum fine of $5000.00.
Determination of the appropriate sentence
108 As the entire sequence of events on the night of 15 February 2001 relating to the present charges arose out of a minor misdemeanour on the roads, I am guided by previous case law on “road rage” where the courts have been explicit in their sentiments towards such incidences.
109 Deterrent sentences are the norm for “road rage” cases and there are sound reasons for it. In the case of
PP v Lee Seck Hing [1992] 2 SLR 75, the learned Chief Justice Yong held:
“Violent crimes are one of the curses of our society against which it is the primary duty of the courts to protect the public. This is especially so on a small island like Singapore, where citizens live in close proximity to each other: our daily lives are unavoidably intertwined to some extent, making the preservation of order and harmony all the more important…
The court must also be mindful of the need to deter anyone else who would resort with impunity to violence on the roads, especially in view of the deplorable increase in such incidents. Our roads are progressively becoming more crowded each month, as more and more cars add to the traffic, and motorists must simply learn to live with one another. There can be no place on our roads for road bullies.
Such persons must be made aware of the severe detestation the law expresses in regard to such crimes. They must not be allowed to go away thinking that they can beat up somebody else on the slightest provocation for the price of a few thousand dollars.” [emphasis mine]
110 Shortly before
Lee Seck Hing’s case, the learned Chief Justice had held in the case of
Ong Hwee Leong v PP [1992] 1 SLR 794 that:
“Minor incidents occur on our roads many times every day. No doubt they are frustrating to those involved. But if, many times every day on our public roads, everyone were to lose his temper and react to the degree the appellant did, all semblance of order would quickly dissipate and only the most violent would prevail.
The perceptible trend in this direction deservedly incurs the courts’ displeasure and must be determinedly discouraged. Drivers must refrain from alighting from their vehicles and assaulting others simply because those others have annoyed them by their driving or in some other way. I therefore adopt unreservedly Lord Land CJ’s view in
Hassan & Schuller that prison sentences ought to follow this sort of incident.” [emphasis mine]
111 In the case of
R v Hassan and R v Schuller (1989) RTR 129 (CA) (see Archbold 1994 Vol 2 (Reissue) 19-196), Lord Land CJ had stated that:
“Generally speaking a comparatively trivial incident such as this, ending in blows, would be properly the subject of a fine and/or a compensation order. But, as already indicated, the habit of drivers getting out of their motorcars, losing their tempers and striking other drivers or pedestrians or cyclists seems to be a phenomenon which unhappily is increasing.
It must be realised that people who drive motorcars must not get out of their vehicles and assault others who may have aggravated them by their driving or any other matter. Consequently, the judge was perfectly correct to indicate the displeasure of the Court by imposing a prison sentence. If this sort of incident occurs then prison sentences will follow.” [emphasis mine]
112 For these reasons, “road rage” cases under section 323 of the Penal Code in Singapore normally attract a deterrent custodial sentence of 3 months and above.
Gravity of the offences
113 I am mindful of the fact that Mr Goh had not been physically assaulted in this case. It is most fortunate Mr Goh had wisely remained in his car despite being painfully taunted by the Accused’s verbal abuse and violent acts in an attempt to get him to come out of the car. If Mr Goh had acted as impulsively as the Accused did and had gotten out of the car, I cannot imagine the consequences that would have ensued.
114 That being said, with regards to the first charge under section 427 of the Penal Code, I cannot simply regard this case as merely one whereby damage was caused to private property out of a sudden outburst of anger arising from a traffic accident. The
actus reas of the charge was committed along Sixth Avenue when both the vehicles had stopped for the second time, a while after the Accused claimed that Mr Goh had tried to cut into his lane. In fact, Mr Goh did not even manage to cut into his lane but had filtered into the space behind his car. That he honked at the Accused was not due to the latter’s refusal to give way but because the Accused braked suddenly and dangerously in front of him. Therefore, I can conclude in no other way except that the Accused was the troublemaker in this case. Furthermore, with the amount of force the Accused used, resulting in a dent in the side of the car, I am sure that he had fully intended to resort to violence in handling the affair.
115 As for the second charge under section 509 of the Penal Code, I explained above that I find that the accused had willfully uttered the words “
lam pa” to Mdm Teo. These words mean “testicles” in Hokkien and are laden with sexual innuendoes intended to insult her modesty. Not only did he utter those words to her, he did so after he came very close to her and his face was almost touching her nose. I find that in addition to insulting her modesty, the Accused had meant to intimidate Mdm Teo as well.
116 For the charge under section 13A(1)(a) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, it is important to remember that by this time the hostile episode between the Accused and Mr Goh was over, and Mr Goh had in fact parked his car by the side of the road to call his wife. He had not re-offended the Accused with his driving or said or did anything to provoke the Accused. Yet the Accused refused to let the matter rest and came forward to him once again as soon as he saw Mr Goh parked by the side of the road. In uttering more vulgarities at Mr Goh, specifically the words “
fuck you”, punching the car and spitting on the windscreen again, I find that the Accused had obviously intended to provoke Mr Goh again to a fight.
117 In my judgment, the behaviour of the Accused is that of a hooligan and cannot be condoned by the court. I find it an aggravating factor against the Accused that he has shown absolutely no remorse for what he has done by persisting with his falsehoods and claiming trial to the charges, despite the Prosecution having very strong evidence against him.
118 Considering the facts of this case in its totality, I am not able to find any mitigating factor that is of value to the Accused. The Accused is neither young nor ignorant; by his own admission, he is an architect by profession and therefore a well-educated man. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the sentence that I meted out against him is wholly appropriate and necessary to deter the like-minded.
119 The Accused has now appealed against the conviction and sentence imposed by me.
