• 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.

Law Minister explains court sentencing of Dr Woffles Wu

You see how much face is desired by the Govt. Even if admitting it as a genuine mistake will solve the problem, it will not relent. I am sure WW can afford a much heavier fine but unsure what it would do to his dignity if it were a prison sentence but this would be only a small cost.

For this case to drag out in cyberspace will only make it worse for his reputation. Many people will miss it if it is a one day mention in MSM but the majority of people who miss it first time can savour the story if it stays on long enough on cyberspace.

If in such an inconsequential matter, the Govt is afraid of losing face, how would they react to a mistake that directly affects the well-being of the entire nation?
 
I wonder if those of us who is willing to apologise to our law minister for fucking him here will be granted and audience with him and get a free autographed book?
 
Woffles Case: Shanmugam taught speeders how to GET AWAY with just $1000

A rare lesson from Shanmugam who was too eagar to clean up Woffles backside.

1st posting is the media coverage, 2nd posting is on how speeders can benefit from the wise words of Shanmugam when we are caught speeding here. Thank-you for the tip, Shanmugam! ;)

Law Minister explains court sentencing of Dr Woffles Wu
Posted: 16 June 2012 2048 hrs

SINGAPORE: Law Minister K. Shanmugam responded to comments that the sentence meted out to plastic surgeon Dr Woffles Wu was too lenient.

Dr Wu was fined S$1,000 on Wednesday for abetting Mr Kuan Yit Wah, then 76, to provide misleading information to the police in November 2006.

The car belonging to Dr Wu, was travelling at 91 kilometers per hour (kmph) on Adam Road when the speed limit is 70kmph.

Mr Shanmugam said the incident raises four questions.

Firstly, why Dr Wu was charged under section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act; secondly why abetment; thirdly why he was given a fine; and lastly why there was a lapse of six years before Dr Wu was taken to task.

Mr Shanmugam explained that the offence was committed in 2006 when section 204 of the Penal Code had not been enacted yet.

The usual practice at the time was that a person would be charged under Section 81(3)

As for why Dr Wu was charged with abetment, Mr Shanmugam said the 52-year-old "did not make the misleading statements himself."

The minister said the statements in question were made by Mr Kuan, which was why the charge could only be that of abetment.

Mr Shanmugam stressed that investigations are ongoing, as to who the driver actually was and that the case has not been concluded.

He said the decision to prosecute was made by the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) and that it is independent in making those decisions.

As for sentencing, Mr Shanmugam said the courts make that decision and a fine is apparently "within the norm of usual sentences" under that charge.

Noting that there have been cases where the offender was jailed, the law minister said based on information provided by the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC), fines are more commonly meted out.

Mr Shanmugam added the reasons for the findings will not be known until there is a written judgement from the court.

And only if and when there is one, he said one can only guess at the reasons for the judgement.

In this case, he said there's no evidence of any money passing hands.

He added that Mr Kuan was also not charged and that could have been because the AGC took into account the fact that Mr Kuan is now over 80 years of age.

As for why it took six years for Dr Wu to be prosecuted, Mr Shanmugam said the police were unaware of the offences at that time.

He said information was received only much later through a complaint to the AGC, made "more recently".

Once the complaint was received, authorities investigated and thereafter the AGC decided to charge Dr Wu.

Mr Shanmugam's comments were made on the sidelines of a community event.

In a blog post, MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC Hri Kumar Nair said such offences are serious and that others who had been convicted of similar offences had been jailed.

He said Mr Shanmugam has answered some of the public's questions on the case.

But it may be useful, Mr Hri said, if the public could understand why some cases involve jail terms while some only received fines.

Turning to the case of the 25-year-old, dubbed the sticker-lady, who was arrested for vandalism, Mr Shanmugam said there are no hard and fast rules on what's considered art on public buildings.

He said the government must look at the consensus of the majority and how the majority would like society to be structured.

Charges have yet to be filed on sticker-lady, Samantha Lo.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1208018/1/.html
 
Last edited:
Re: Woffles Case: Shanmugam taught speeders how to GET AWAY with just $1000

For those who are going to benefit from this posting... you are welcome.

1.-Road-Traffic-Act-Drivers-Particular.gif


_________________________________________________

2.-Road-Traffic-Act-Drivers-Particular-Option-3.gif


Q.E.D.
 
Re: Woffles Case: Shanmugam taught speeders how to GET AWAY with just $1000

To prevent the hassle from all these cases in future.

Suggest TP start a database for all qualifying elites to update their car license plates.
If caught on speed or traffic light cameras, exception granted and no charges be filed against the cars in the database.
This way can save alot of manpower....
 
Re: Woffles Case: Shanmugam taught speeders how to GET AWAY with just $1000

To prevent the hassle from all these cases in future.

Suggest TP start a database for all qualifying elites to update their car license plates.
If caught on speed or traffic light cameras, exception granted and no charges be filed against the cars in the database.
This way can save alot of manpower....

Well, in this case, Shanmugam's tip applies to both elites and commoners - it is obvious, right?
 
Re: Woffles Case: Shanmugam taught speeders how to GET AWAY with just $1000

Well, in this case, Shanmugam's tip applies to both elites and commoners - it is obvious, right?

You trust a triple headed snake?
You try the tip out kena jail cry no tears no one pity.
 
I wonder if those of us who is willing to apologise to our law minister for fucking him here will be granted and audience with him and get a free autographed book?

You dare to meet him? Wait kena mark then you know.
Then next time come back Sinkieland, at changi airport give you full body cavity search :D
 
Re: Woffles Case: Shanmugam taught speeders how to GET AWAY with just $1000

LOL, i am sure it will be cheaper for the country.
To prevent the hassle from all these cases in future.

Suggest TP start a database for all qualifying elites to update their car license plates.
If caught on speed or traffic light cameras, exception granted and no charges be filed against the cars in the database.
This way can save alot of manpower....
 
Breaking news!! AGC explain why fine is sufficient for Woofles

1. We refer to the media reports about the case against Woffles Wu.

2. Woffles Wu was charged for abetting his employee Kuan to give false information to the police about the commission of speeding offenses in 2005 and 2006. Kuan gave the false information. Woffles Wu, who did not give any information to the police, was charged with abetting Kuan to do so, which is an offence under Section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act. There was no evidence of payment or gratification given to Kuan. Kuan, who is 82 years old, was given a stern warning.

3. In general, fines or short custodial sentences are imposed for wilfully providing false information, under Section 81(3) Road Traffic Act. Custodial sentences are typically imposed under this section when there are aggravating features, such as many instances of the offence committed by the same person.

4. Some media reports refer to cases in which imprisonment term has been imposed under Section 204A of the Penal Code. The accused could not have been charged under that provision for intentionally perverting the course of justice (which is a more serious charge compared with Section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act). This is because the accused committed his offence in 2006, before Section 204A of the Penal Code was enacted in 2008. The position of the accused is therefore different from others who were subject to Section 204A and who have been punished with a term of imprisonment.

5. The charge preferred against an accused person would be calibrated to reflect the seriousness of the criminal act and the fact situation, and whether the legislation in question provides a specific provision dealing with the criminal act or whether reliance has to be placed on general legislation such as the Penal Code. On the facts of this case, as there was no major accident or injury, it was considered appropriate to proceed under Section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act rather than invoke the general provisions of the Penal Code, such as Section 182. Other sections have their own requirements, which would not have been met on the facts of the present case. Prior to 2008, offences of this nature were generally dealt with under Section 81 (3) of the Road Traffic Act.
* * *
Media Contact:
Li Jin Haw (Ms)
Assistant Director, Corporate Communications Unit
Attorney-General’s Chambers, Singapore
Email: [email protected]
Tel: 6332 4693
 
Re: Breaking news!! AGC explain why fine is sufficient for Woofles

who signed the summons notice?
oh i get it, car was registered to WW , he got the summons notice, but Mr Kwan did the magnanimous deed of signing off that he was the driver??????

i very confused....
 
Last edited:
Re: Breaking news!! AGC explain why fine is sufficient for Woofles

who signed the summons notice?
oh i get it, car was registered to WW , he got the summons notice, but Mr Kwan did the magnanimous deed of signing off that he was the driver??????

i very confused....

It is a "woof woof here, a woof woof there, a meow meow here , a meow meow there"..next time you receive the same summon, tell your Filipino or Indonesian or the flavour of the year Myanmese maid to sign off for you and tell the AG that, it was the maid who did it! or was it the butler or the famiLEE dog? who knows?:rolleyes:
 
Re: Breaking news!! AGC explain why fine is sufficient for Woofles

According to CNA forum, someone has found out that Dr Wu is actually nephew of late President Ong:

http://www.pachealthholdings.com/csc/articles/nip_tuck.html

"Dr Wu - who counts the late former president Ong Teng Cheong as his uncle, The Link's Tina Tan-Leo as his cousin, and Dick Lee and Glen Goei as his friends - has other luxuries. "


Fulle article:

View attachment 5325

How much more Nip/Tuck can we be?

They are opposites in temperament, their clientele is a who's who of the region and they jet-set in luxury cars and fly first class. JEANMARIE TAN ([email protected]) gets under the skin of plastic surgeons Dr Woffles Wu and Dr Martin Huang to find out how they resemble television's hottest surgeons in the medical drama Nip/Tuck.

They've known each other since they were teenagers, when they competed on opposing teams at a public speaking competition.

They attended medical school at the National University of Singapore together, and ended up working side-by-side at Singapore General Hospital's (SGH) plastic surgery unit. They even talked of becoming partners and setting up a practice together. Seemingly opposite in temperament and looks, they were also each other's best man.

Today, Dr Woffles Wu and Dr Martin Huang - best friends for 28 years - are considered a cut above the rest in their profession. 'How much more Nip/Tuck can we be?' Dr Wu joked to The New Paper during a joint interview with Dr Huang at his clinic at Camden Medical Centre.


TV DRAMA

In case you've been under anaesthesia for the past few weeks, Nip/Tuck is the critically-acclaimed US TV drama about two plastic surgeons/med school buddies who run a posh practice in Miami. Dr Christian Troy (Julian McMahon) is the flashy, opportunistic bad boy, and Dr Shawn McNamara (Dylan Walsh) is the upright family man.

It's hard not to compare Dr Wu and Dr Huang to their on-screen alter egos - at least on a superficial level. With his spectacles and neatly-parted hair, Dr Wu comes across as conservative. But in reality, he is the 'flamboyant, even outrageous' social butterfly, according to Dr Huang, who is with MD Specialist Healthcare at Paragon.

On the other hand, 43-year-old Dr Huang may look like a smooth playboy in his designer togs, but he's actually the introvert. And, the one who receives the most female attention. Dr Wu, 44, quipped: 'The girls love him!' He added: 'Martin's a perfectionist. There's also an elegance and grace to the way he behaves. He has a wicked sense of humour - that's why we get on so well.'

They first met in 1976 at the finals of an elocution contest, where Dr Wu represented St Andrew's Secondary School and Dr Huang, Catholic High. Over the years, they've helped each other's careers. Dr Huang was studying general surgery, but upon Dr Wu's recommendation, switched to plastic surgery. Dr Huang left SGH in 1998 to set up his own practice, Dr Wu followed suit in 2000 and relied on his pal to show him the ropes. They also share knowledge - Dr Huang has even adopted Dr Wu's famous facelift thread technique for his own patients.

But isn't there any rivalry between them? Dr Huang said: 'Yes, but there always has been. It's a healthy competition, and not an obsession where you let the one-upmanship become the end in itself.'
'If I didn't respect him, I wouldn't even want to compete with him. But because he's good, it drives me on as well and we both improve.'

But both appeared hesitant when asked if they would consider a partnership again in future. Dr Wu said: 'It's not inconceivable, but now we're in two diametrically opposite kind of business practices - a solo one and a big group.' Dr Huang added: 'I still consider us spiritual partners anyway, through our professionalism and friendship.'

Separate or co-existing, their current game plan is definitely working - just look at their rich and glamorous lifestyles. On average, both plastic surgeons work a 65-hour week, and their clientele ranges from the prominent (wives of politicians, actresses, models, lawyers, bankers) to the ordinary (students, housewives, office ladies). Dr Wu jet-sets twice a month to present his work in the US and Europe - flying first-class.

LUXURIES

Dr Wu - who counts the late former president Ong Teng Cheong as his uncle, The Link's Tina Tan-Leo as his cousin, and Dick Lee and Glen Goei as his friends - has other luxuries. Like his expensive art and sculpture collection which he stores in his bungalow-cum-warehouse at Upper Thomson, while he lives in his unrenovated 1950s family home on the same street. And then there are his two Mercedes which he has lovingly restored for $100,000 each.

And just as Dr Wu enjoys flying first-class, Dr Huang prefers to drive first-class - he owns a Porsche Boxster S and a Jaguar XJR. He is currently building a $4.5 million house at Sunset Vale and rents out an apartment at Astrid Meadows. Needless to say, these oft-quoted plastic surgeons are also very comfortable at being labelled as celebrities. Dr Huang said: 'It's not something we actively or intentionally tried to create, but it just happened naturally, which is the best way. There is also a certain glamour attached to the industry anyway.'

But with the lion's share of the spotlight constantly on Dr Wu and Dr Huang, other surgeons have been allegedly sharpening their scalpels. Both claimed that they've heard negative comments and 'backhanded compliments' through the grapevine. Dr Huang said: 'I've heard some say that I overcharge. But I charge what I feel is fair, because I put in a lot of time and effort. If you work hard, do good work, and are lucky to have a bit of talent along the way, success will just come. I suppose the danger for us is to let it all get to our heads. That's why it's important to remember all the basic things that got you there - like taking care of your patients.'

Would they go under the knife to look better?

Tell me what you don't like about yourself. That's the standard feeler question the plastic surgeons in Nip/Tuck ask their patients. Now, let's flip it back to the doctors.

Dr Wu and Dr Huang give themselves frequent skin-rejuvenating treatments like botox, fillers and IPL (intense pulse light), but are not free from physical insecurities. Dr Wu offered: 'Oh, I have a lot of issues about myself!' He had an operation on his nose 20 years ago to fix a breathing problem, and used to be bothered by his 'small head and big bum', that he was born with too few teeth and hated wearing glasses. Dr Huang has acne scars from his younger days, his ears are asymmetrical, and his eyebags are 'getting worse'. Yet, both say they aren't 'bothered enough' by their flaws, and are too 'lazy' and 'busy' to go under the knife.

In the pilot episode of Nip/Tuck, one of the surgeon's wives requests for breast implants. Luckily for Dr Wu and Dr Huang, their spouses don't have severe body image problems. Dr Wu's wife Juay Yong, a 44-year-old health policy administrator, is 'very laidback' while Dr Huang's wife Patricia, a 36-year-old ex-SIA stewardess, takes the initiative. 'She keeps asking me if she needs botox, which she doesn't! She also complains that I don't do enough for her, and it's even harder for her to get treatment from me because she has to queue up,' joked Dr Huang.

Since Nip/Tuck featured the same surgeon's teenage son demanding a circumcision, would they be willing to do vanity surgery on their own children? Dr Wu is all for it - he has a four-year-old son, Wellington, and daughter Waverly was born on Sunday. Dr Huang also expressed interest in operating on his son Alexander, who's 1 1/2. 'He doesn't have double eyelids ... But mine only appeared when I was a young adult, so there's still hope.'
Nip/Tuck is showing over Channel 5, Fridays at 11pm.

Source: The Newpaper
 
Ong Teng Chiong Ah !

According to CNA forum, someone has found out that Dr Wu is actually nephew of late President Ong:

"Dr Wu - who counts the late former president Ong Teng Cheong as his uncle, The Link's Tina Tan-Leo as his cousin, and Dick Lee and Glen Goei as his friends - has other luxuries."


Yah, that was what Temasek Review Facebook said too. But, OTC was a good guy, rite ? He was in some way being cold 'storaged' too, rite ?
 
Re: Ong Teng Chiong Ah !

Good guy bad guy, once you break the law, you are bad bad guy.....

Goh Meng Seng


Yah, that was what Temasek Review Facebook said too. But, OTC was a good guy, rite ? He was in some way being cold 'storaged' too, rite ?
 
Re: Breaking news!! AGC explain why fine is sufficient for Woofles

Section 204 has kicked in by now, bro. Not a crever move.

It is a "woof woof here, a woof woof there, a meow meow here , a meow meow there"..next time you receive the same summon, tell your Filipino or Indonesian or the flavour of the year Myanmese maid to sign off for you and tell the AG that, it was the maid who did it! or was it the butler or the famiLEE dog? who knows?:rolleyes:
 
You dare to meet him? Wait kena mark then you know.
Then next time come back Sinkieland, at changi airport give you full body cavity search :D

No la I just wonder only la Reuben can get free autographed book from TCH after apology what!
 
I love how this whole thing is unfolding, the more they explain the more worms they are releasing out of the can.
 
I love how this whole thing is unfolding, the more they explain the more worms they are releasing out of the can.

I've been say time and again its karma, pay back time.
 
Re: Woffles Case: Shanmugam taught speeders how to GET AWAY with just $1000

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
 
Back
Top