Woffles Wu Saga Revisited: Ex-UK Minister gets 8 months for same offence

[Rumpole]

...... I think they never managed to prove that he was driving the car. .......

From Singapolitics, which if one clicks on the link provided below is obviously a part of the Straits Times, a Government sanctioned publication:

"Plastic surgeon Woffles Wu, 52, was behind the wheel of a car that was detected for speeding on two separate occasions in 2005 and 2006.

In a twist to the case, the Attorney-General’s Chambers said on Thursday that investigations by the Traffic Police have confirmed this."

http://www.singapolitics.sg/news/traffic-police-confirm-woffles-wu-was-behind-wheel-speeding-car

There are two facts of life: first, if you're rich enough, you can hire a lawyer who's smart enough. Second, everybody is presumed innocent unless proven guildy.

Thanks, but let me rebutt with another two facts of life which are more important.

Fact ONE:

Woffles Wu PLEADED GUILTY to the offence with which he was charged. It is trite law that when an accused of sound mind has voluntarily pleaded guilty (i.e. without being coerced for example by a Fat Thing from the CPIB), it is not for a judge or anybody else to look behind the plead. In other words, in the eyes of the law he has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to have committed the offence for which he was charged. The presumption of innocence has been successfully rebutted by his voluntary CONFESSION. In the eyes of the law, he is GUILTY.

This is the link to the GUILTY PLEA:

http://motoring.asiaone.com/Motoring/News/Story/A1Story20120613-352512.html


Fact TWO:

It is indeed true that if you are rich enough you can hire a lawyer who is smart enough, BUT in a country where there is rule of law, however rich you are, you are NOT supposed to be able to find a judge who is compliant enough. The judge has only one duty: to ensure that justice is served. All who comes before the judge are treated equally in the eyes of the law, be he a tycoon or a pauper.

I am not aware that the judge in this case has given a written judgement. Given the public outcry, it would be most imprudent not to do so. Sylvia has indeed asked this question in Parliament. The Legislature, of course, cannot force a member of the Judiciary to issue a written judgement if he is not inclined to do so.

The question to ask then is why has the judge not issued a written judgement? Is he not aware of or concerned with the public outcry over what appears to be a manifestly inadequate sentence? If this is the case, is he still fit to be a judge? One must bear in mind that a judge does not give judgements in a vacuum. His decisions have an impact on the wider society.

 

[kukubird58]

hahaha....is this the end of the case???
why bother to investigate if the purpose was just to establish who was the driver at the material times??
is this some kind of a joke???
SL/WP needs to pursue this further rather going thru the motion.

 

[metalmickey]

Well if that's the case then I haven't got anything more to add. Although what I was told was that the really weird thing about this case was not what the judge did but what the prosecutor did. In effect, the prosecutor slapped him with a light charge, which didn't carry any jail term, and he just pleaded guilty to that light charge.

 

[Rumpole]

Well if that's the case then I haven't got anything more to add. Although what I was told was that the really weird thing about this case was not what the judge did but what the prosecutor did. In effect, the prosecutor slapped him with a light charge, which didn't carry any jail term, and he just pleaded guilty to that light charge.

Not factually correct either. He was charged under Section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act with abetting his aged and vulnerable employee in providing false information to the Police as to who was behind the wheel. Under this provision, the judge could have sentenced Woffles to a "fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both".

For more, please see my article on TR Emeritus which was published in June 2012 at:

http://www.tremeritus.com/2012/06/1...igh-court-to-exercise-its-revisionary-powers/

While 8 months may be a bit harsh for a prominent doctor as opposed to a Cabinet Minister, a custodial sentence of at least a few weeks would be in order. Perverting the course of justice is not exactly child's play. The rule of law can only be an utopian dream if every Tom, Dick and HARRY can get away with a mere fine for perverting its course by applying subtle pressure on an aged and vulnerable employee.

As per my article on TRE, there is no time limit for a High Court judge to exercise his revisionary powers. That is if any one of them has the balls to do it!

If in the minds of SG voters, the Scums in White are somehow behind this, there can only be one course of action - vote wisely in 2016! Cheers.

 

[metalmickey]

You said yourself that he could have been charged under the Penal act instead of for a traffic offence. What I heard is that charging him under different laws would have made a difference to his sentencing. Don't these two laws have different sets of precedents? I mean even if the maximum possible sentence under the traffic law is jail, he couldn't possibly go to jail, since lying about speeding is not the same as lying about knocking down and killing a pedestrian. Otherwise you could go to jail for lying about taking a cookie from the jar.

Some other guy who lied about an accident was charged and went to jail was prosecuted under the penal act. It seems that they avoided charging Woffles Wu under the penal act, because the precedent meant that he would have gone to jail.

 

[Rumpole]

What I heard is that charging him under different laws would have made a difference to his sentencing. Don't these two laws have different sets of precedents? I mean even if the maximum possible sentence under the traffic law is jail, he couldn't possibly go to jail, since lying about speeding is not the same as lying about knocking down and killing a pedestrian. Otherwise you could go to jail for lying about taking a cookie from the jar.

Some other guy who lied about an accident was charged and went to jail was prosecuted under the penal act. It seems that they avoided charging Woffles Wu under the penal act, because the precedent meant that he would have gone to jail.

Former UK Minister, Chris Huhne, also did not kill or knock down a pedestrian. His case is on all fours with Woffles'. Mr. Huhne has now been sentenced to 8 MONTHS in jail. His wife, who agreed to take the rap for a mere speeding offence where no one was killed, not a single lamp post was damaged, also suffered the same fate - 8 MONTHS.

This is no ordinary lie. It is a lie that will lead to a miscarriage of justice. So, your analogy about the cookie jar is entirely misplaced. Providing false information to the police is a serious crime in any country that values the rule of law. The law can only be enforced if the police has correct information about who did what, when, where, etc. That's why we have provisions in our law to require people to give information when called upon by the police to do so and punishments for giving false information TO THE POLICE.

What irks me as well is that former Jessup mooter Shame-mugam can look the daft Sinkie public in the eye and tell them that since no money changed hands between Woffles and his aged and vulnerable employee, therefore Woffles deserved a lighter sentence. Utter BULLSHIT. Did any money changed hands between Huhne and his wife, who was a prominent economist in her own right? None. Both still got 8 MONTHS and I applaud the British for showing up our Ministars for the Shameless Minions that they really are. Not worth a single penny of the Out-of-this-World salaries that we pay them.