This Shan guy cited 6 cases that may have been similar to Woff.
If only Slyvia shot back at him on those cases that contracts the ruling on Woff.
Below is a cut and paste from my earlier post in another thread
http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread....-Wu-fined-only-1K-for-lying-to-police-2-times
Slyvia, use CASE LAWS.
*****************************************************
Public Prosecutor v Teu Han Yong [2011] SGDC 301
Suit No : PSM No 2914 of 2010
Decision Date : 12 September 2011
Court : District Court
Coram : Roy Grenville Neighbour
Counsel : Yang Ziliang, Deputy Public Prosecutor for the Public Prosecutor; Zaminder Singh Gill., M/s Hilborne & Company, Counsel for the Appellant
Top
12 September 2011
District Judge Roy Grenville Neighbour:
The appellant is the accused.
The appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of providing false information to a police officer concerning a traffic accident in contravention of Section 182 of the Penal Code (Chapter 224). The charge to which the appellant pleaded guilty to is:-
PSM No 2914/2010 [Exhibit C1A]
You,
Teu Han Yong, Male 36 years old
NRIC No: S7516851 I
DOB: 8-6-1975
Singapore Citizen
are charged that you, on the 11th day of September 2009 at about 4.10 pm., at the Traffic Police Station at No. 10 Ubi Avenue 3, Singapore, did give to a public servant, namely, Station Inspector Cecilia Neo of the Singapore Police Force, information contained in a police statement that you did not know the driver of the motor car registration number SJH 3245 E, one Tan Wee Boon, who was involved in an accident which occurred on 27 Jun Æ09 at about 1.45 am., along KJE towards Tuas, which information you knew to be false, knowing it to be likely that you would thereby cause the said public servant to believe that you were an independent witness and cause her to conduct investigations into the matter, which the said public servant ought not to have done if the true state of facts respecting which such information was given were known to her, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 182 of the Penal Code, (Chapter 224).
2 At the conclusion of the hearing the
appellant was found guilty and was convicted on the charge. He was sentenced to 2 weeks imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the sentence the appellant has lodged this appeal on grounds that the sentence imposed is manifestly excessive.
FACTS
3 The facts are that on or about 27 Jun æ09 at about 1.45 am, there was a minor road traffic accident between two motor vehicles bearing registration numbers SJH 3245 E and SGY 4248 R on Kranji Expressway (ôKJEö) towards the direction of Tuas. The driver of motor vehicle SJH 3245 E was one Ken Tan Wee Boon (ôKen Tanö). With regard to the accident he had stated that the appellant, the passenger in a motor lorry bearing registration No. GQ4020T driven by one Zeng Jianzhong (ôZengö) and that the appellant and Zeng saw the accident.
The appellantÆs statement
4 On 11 Sep æ09 at about 4.10 pm., at the Traffic Police Department the appellant was interviewed by SI Neo. During the interview, the appellant informed SI Neo that on 27 Jun Æ09 at the material time of the accident, he was a passenger in the front cab of lorry bearing registration no. GQ 4020 T, and that Zeng, his friend, was the driver of the said motor vehicle. The appellant also informed SI Neo that he had seen the accident between motor vehicles SJH 3245 E and SGY 4248 R and that the motor lorry had subsequently stopped ahead of these two vehicles. The appellant informed SI Neo that he did not know the two drivers involved in the accident.
ZengÆs statement
5 Investigations revealed that on 10 Sep æ09 at about 4.15 pm., at Traffic Police Department Zeng was interviewed by Station Inspector Cecilia Neo (ôSI Neo)ö. At this interview, Zeng in his statement informed the Complainant that on 27 Jun æ09 at the material time of the accident, he was driving lorry GQ 4020 T, and his friend the appellant was a passenger in the front cab. Zeng informed SI Neo that he had seen the accident between the motor vehicles bearing registration nos. SJH 3245 E and SGY 4248 R and that had stopped ahead of these two vehicles. Zeng also informed SI Neo that he did not know the identities of the two drivers involved in the accident.
6 Pursuant to the information provided by the appellant and Zeng, SI Neo carried out further investigations into the accident on 27 Jun æ09, including screening telephone call records. In the course of investigations, SI Neo discovered that the appellant, Zeng and Ken Tan knew each other and the appellant had been frequently contacting Ken Tan on his mobile telephone before the accident.
7 In the course of police investigations on 13 Sep æ10, the appellant admitted to SI Neo that he had known Ken Tan since early 2009, and had been contacting him very frequently before the accident. Investigations also revealed that when the appellant provided his statement to the Traffic Police on 11 Sep æ09, his account of how the accident occurred was based solely on what Ken Tan had told him to state.
8 The appellant also admitted that he had knowingly provided false information to SI Neo, a public servant, and that he would thereby cause SI Neo to use her lawful powers to conduct an investigation into the matter, which she would not have done had she known the true facts respecting information provided to her.
9 On 13 Sep æ10, Zeng too, admitted to SI Neo that he had known Ken Tan a few months prior to the accident, and that he had, before the accident, frequently called Ken Tan. Further investigations also revealed that in fact Zeng did not see the accident at all. Zeng was driving his motor lorry some distance behind TanÆs vehicle bearing registration no. SJH 3245 E at the point of the accident and had only stopped near the accident vehicles after the collision occurred. Investigations also revealed that it was Ken Tan who told Zeng how to describe how the accident occurred to the Traffic Police.
10 Zeng also admitted that he knowingly provided false information to SI Neo, a public servant, and knowing it to be likely that he would thereby cause SI Neo to use her lawful powers to conduct an investigation into the matter, which she would not have done if she knew true state of facts respecting the information provided to her.
Antecedents
11
The appellant is not a first offender. On 14 Dec æ99, he was convicted for an offence under section 8(1)(b) of the MoneylenderÆs Act (ôMLAö) and sentenced to a fine of $15,000 with another similar charge being taken into consideration. On 6 Apr æ00, for an offence under section 67(1)(B) of the Road Traffic Act (ôRTAö) of driving whilst under the influence of alcohol he was fined $2,000 and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for all classes of motor vehicles for a period of 18 months. The appellant has also an antecedent for being a member of an unlawful assembly.
Mitigation
12 In mitigation, Counsel informed the Court that for his role in the commission of the offence, Ken Tan was sentenced to 2 weeks imprisonment. However, as regards sentencing the appellant in the instant case, Counsel urged the Court to impose a non-custodial sentence. Counsel, in support of this argument referred to several cases namely, PP v Tow Qui Yi[note: 1], PP v Alvin Chan Siw Hong[note: 2], PP v Li Jieyin (unreported)[note: 3] and PP v Poh Chee Hwee[note: 4] where fines ranging from $1,000 to $4,000 were imposed for providing false information to the police.
13 Counsel highlighted that the appellant pleaded guilty to the offence and with regard to the commission of the instant offence, is a first offender. In the instant case, there was no evasion of prosecution by the appellant. No innocent parties were called up on interviewed in the course of police investigations. He just repeated to the investigating officer what Ken Tan told him to say. Ken Tan told the appellant that the statement was only for record purposes and that they would not need to appear in court in this regard. Without realizing the consequences of making a false police report the appellant proceeded to do the same. Furthermore, the appellant did not receive any financial benefit for committing the offence which he did foolishly and irrationally. However, after making the statement, Zeng felt uneasy and realized that what he did was wrong. Intending to retract his statement, the following day, he called the investigating officer and intimated his intention to do so. Zeng also tried to get the appellant to do the same but SI Neo did not contact him. It was CounselÆs submission, that the fact that the appellant intended to retract his statement reflects his remorse for committing the offence.
Sentence
14 I considered CounselÆs argument that a non-custodial sentence be imposed case on the appellant. However, I disagree that a fine is an appropriate punishment in the instant case. Providing false information to a public servant, namely a police officer in relation to a traffic accident is an offence that is viewed with seriousness because it is very likely that the said officer upon receipt of such information will embark on an investigation that may result in the guilty getting off scot free and the innocent being investigated or arrested thereby hindering the proper administration of justice. Such false information impedes public servants in the efficient exercise of their duties. The maximum prescribed punishment for the offence is a term of imprisonment of up to one year. In CLB and Anor v PP[note: 5], Chief Justice Yong Pung How (as he then was) in providing guidance in sentencing offences under section 182 of the Penal Code stated that:
ôThe normal sentence imposed for an ordinary offence under section 182 of the Penal Code where the person to be sentenced is a first time offender is a fine of up to $1,000. However,
section 182 Penal Code covers an extensive array of misinformation of greatly varying degrees of iniquity and the norm must be varied according to the circumstances of each case, in particular the mischief that might be caused by the misinformation.
15 Bearing in mind the above, the Court then has to determine whether the sentencing norm ought to be varied according to the circumstances of the present case, particularly the mischief that might be caused by the misinformation provided to the police with regard to the accident that occurred.
16 In reference to the cases cited by the Counsel for the appellant namely, PP v Alvin Chan Siw Hong[note: 6], the Learned District Judge in that case imposed a fine of $4000 in respect of an offence under section 182 of the Penal Code. In doing so, he found that there were no aggravating circumstances in the case. In that case the offender lodged a false police report stating that his motor cycle was stolen from a car park in Singapore when in fact it had been stolen in Malaysia. The offender made the false report in order to claim compensation from the insurance company for the theft. However, the prosecution has since filed an appeal against the decision.
17 As the matter is pending an appeal by the prosecution there is little reliance this court can place on this decision. Importantly, the learned District Judge poignantly observed that ôthe case law on section 182 showed that the sentencing norm is a custodial sentence ranging from one to two weeks up to a few months imprisonment depending on the ôgreatly varying degrees of iniquityö.
18 Likewise, in PP v Tow Qiu Yi[note: 7], the Learned District Judge fined the offender $4,000 for making a false police report in contravention under section 182 of the Penal Code. The offender had also falsely reported the loss of his motor cycle in Singapore when it was stolen in Malaysia. The false report was made with a view of obtaining a higher insurance payout for the stolen motor cycle. The court found no aggravating circumstances in the case. The prosecution has since filed an appeal against this decision.
19 Also, in PP v Li Jieyin[note: 8], the District Court in imposing a fine of $3,000 on the offender for providing false information to a police officer that her ôgod-brother had raped her at the Golden Dragon Hotel two days earlierö regarded the case as an exceptional one as the offender had lied to the police in order to placate her boy-friend. As all these cases are all cases are on appeal to the High Court, I placed little reliance on them.
20 Furthermore, the false statement the appellant made was 3 months after the accident. Thus, the commission of the offence could not be said to have been committed on the spur of the moment.
This fact also suggests that there was premeditation and planning prior to the commission of the offence. If indeed the appellant entertained second thoughts he had every opportunity to back down but did not do so. All information with regard to how the accident occurred is vital to the investigating officer because she is required to assess the evidence and make recommendations that may ultimately affect the liability of the parties involved. In the instant case, considerable police effort was expended including retrieving and reviewing the telephone records of the appellant, Zeng and Ken Tan.
21
There was clearly a conspiracy between the appellant, Ken Tan and Zeng to subvert the course of justice for which a custodial sentence was clearly warranted. The fact that the appellant went ahead and provided false information to the investigating officer gave life to the plan to subvert the course of justice by causing SI Neo to believe that he was an independent eye-witness to the accident when he was not. Furthermore, with regard to the appellant revealing the truth he only did so almost a year later. Even though he had tried to withdraw his statement he did not explain to SI Neo that he was not an independent witness.
For his role in the commission of the offence, Ken Tan was sentenced to 2 weeks imprisonment. Zeng too, was sentenced to 2 weeks imprisonment for the commission of the offence.
22 Accordingly, I am of the view that a similar sentence be meted out to the appellant.
Accordingly, the appellant is sentenced to 2 weeks imprisonment for the offence.
[note: 1][2010 ] SGDC 409
[note: 2][2010 ] SGDC 411
[note: 3]Straits Times (9 April 2011) Page B12
[note: 4]DAC No 47797/2010
[note: 5][1993] 1 SLR 598
[note: 6][2010] SGDC 411
[note: 7][ 2010] SGDC 409
[note: 8]Straits Times (9 April 2011) page B12
