Lim Seng Keong & anor v Public Prosecutor

• Judge: Carol Ling Feng Yong
• Judgment Date: 19 March 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] SGMC 13
• Citation: [2001] SGMC 13
• Published date: 19 April 2005
• Court: Magistrates' Court (Singapore)

2. Koh Chee Khoon ...appellants

v

Public Prosecutor ...respondent

Citation:	MA No 57 of 2001
Jurisdiction:	Singapore
Date:	2001:03:19
	2001:02:22
Court:	Subordinate Courts
Coram:	Carol Ling, Magistrate
Counsel:	Inspector Poh Soon Hiap (Police Prosecutor) for the Prosecution / Respondent
	Harbajan Singh for the Accused Persons / Appellants

JUDGMENT:

Grounds of Decision

Plea

1. The 2 Accused persons each pleaded guilty to 1 charge under section 182 of the Penal Code.

2. Accused Lim Seng Keong (hereafter "Lim") pleaded guilty to abetting one Tan Beng Teng, by instigating her to instigate the other Accused Koh Chee Khoon, to give false information to one Staff Sergeant Ng Nguan Ling that he (Koh Chee Khoon) was the driver of motor car SBV 2469D, an offence under section 182 of the Penal Code read with section 109 of the same.

3. Accused Koh Chee Khoon (hereafter "Koh") also pleaded guilty, to a charge of giving false information to the said Staff Sergeant Ng Nguan Ling that he was the driver of SBV 2469 D, which information he knew to be false, an offence under section 182 of the Penal Code.

Statement of Facts

4. The truth, as presented in both the Statement of Facts, revealed that Lim was the actual driver of the motor car SBV 2469 D which was involved in a traffic accident along Marymount Road. Lim had no valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. Whilst in Tan Tock Seng hospital, he instigated his girlfriend, Tan Beng Teng, to ask the owner of the vehicle, Koh, to admit that he was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident. The said Tan did so and Koh agreed to help.

5. As a result, when called by Staff Sergeant Ng on his handphone, Koh admitted to her that he was the driver of SBV 2469 D, information which he clearly knew was false and which he knew would cause her to omit carrying out investigations into the case of driving without a valid licence committed by Lim.

6. Counsel further added that Koh had only wanted to help a friend. When questioned, he could not carry on with the story.

Antecedents

7. Both Accused persons are untraced.

Mitigation

8. Counsel described the Accused persons as "youthful offenders". Both were childhood friends. Both realise they had done wrong and were in fact relieved that the matter had been exposed because it had been on their minds for a long while. Counsel pleaded for leniency for both the Accused persons and asked the Court to give an appropriate sentence.

Sentence

9. The punishment for a section 182 offence is a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 months or both.

10. It is recognised that section 182 "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….." (CLB & Anor v PP [1993] 1 SLR 598). In keeping with this principle, fines of $1,000 to terms of 6 months imprisonment have been meted out by the Courts before...