Cheng William v Loo Ngee Long Edmund
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Judge | Yong Pung How CJ |
Judgment Date | 30 July 2001 |
Neutral Citation | [2001] SGHC 201 |
Citation | [2001] SGHC 201 |
Subject Matter | Criminal intimidation,Whether manifestly inadequate,Whether Public Prosecutor has power to discontinue proceedings,Assault,Powers,Public prosecutor,Sentencing,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Whether Public Prosecutor has power to intervene in criminal proceedings and private prosecutions,No aggravating factors,Wrongful restraint |
Docket Number | Magistrate's Appeal No 102 of 2001 |
Date | 30 July 2001 |
Plaintiff Counsel | N Sreenivasan (Straits Law Practice LLC) |
Published date | 07 November 2003 |
Defendant Counsel | Bala Reddy and Toh Yung Cheong (Deputy Public Prosecutors) |
: This was an appeal against the decision of the District Judge Salina Ishak in a private summons case when she convicted the respondent of one offence each under ss 352, 341 and 506 of the Penal Code (Cap 224). The respondent was sentenced to a fine of $500 (in default two days` imprisonment) in respect of the first offence, a fine of $500 (in default two days` imprisonment) in respect of the second offence, and a fine of $1,000 (in default five days` imprisonment) in respect of the third offence. The appellant appealed against the sentence on the ground that it was manifestly inadequate. Although the Public Prosecutor had not been involved directly in the proceedings, he took the unusual step of intervening in the appeal. He submitted that the appeal be discontinued. I ordered that the appeal be discontinued and now give my reasons.
The charges
The first two charges and the amended third charge read as follows:
First Charge
PSS 001078-2001
You,
Edmund Loo Ngee Long,
NRIC No. S1523005C
are charged that you, on the 15th day of September 2000 at or about 2.00 pm at 279 Balestier Road, Balestier Point, Singapore 329727 did without grave and sudden provocation assaulted ( sic) one William Cheng, to wit, by shouting rudely and using aggressive gestures at him, making him apprehend that you were about to use criminal force on him, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 352 of the Penal Code, Cap 224.
Second Charge
PSS 001089-2000
You,
Edmund Loo Ngee Long,
NRIC No. S1523005C
are charged that you, on the 15th day of September 2000 at or about 2.00 pm at 279 Balestier Road, Balestier Point, Singapore 329727 did voluntarily obstruct one William Cheng, to wit, prevente ( sic) him from proceeding in his intended direction in which he has a right to proceed and you have thereby committed an offence under section 341 of the Penal Code, Cap 224.
Third Charge
PSS 00109-2000
You,
Edmund Loo Ngee Long,
NRIC No. S1523005C
are charged that you, on the 15th day of September 2000 at or about 2.00 pm at 279 Balestier Road, Balestier Point, Singapore 329727 did threatened ( sic) one William Cheng Chairman of Balestier Point Management Corporation, to wit, by threatening him with injury to his person, intending thereby to cause alarm to the said William Cheng and you have thereby committed and ( sic) offence punishable under section 506 of the Penal Code, Cap 224.
The offences
The relevant...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Attorney-General v Tee Kok Boon
...is named. Two examples of the last point were Jasbir Kaur v Mukhtiar Singh [1999] 2 SLR 349 and Cheng William v LooNgee Long Edmund [2001] 3 SLR 581. Also, in the second case mentioned, Chief Justice Yong Pung How had referred in paragraphs 4 and 18 of his judgment to a party having “instit......
-
Aurol Anthony Sabastian v Sembcorp Marine Ltd
...AG v Times Newspapers Ltd [1992] 1 AC 191 (folld) Bramblevale Ltd, Re [1970] Ch 128 (folld) Cheng William v Loo Ngee Long Edmund [2001] 2 SLR (R) 626; [2001] 3 SLR 581 (refd) Churchman v Joint Shop Stewards' Committee of the Workers of the Port of London [1972] 1 WLR 1094 (refd) Con-Mech (E......
-
Attorney-General v Tee Kok Boon
...is named. Two examples of the last point were Jasbir Kaur v Mukhtiar Singh [1999] 2 SLR 349 and Cheng William v LooNgee Long Edmund [2001] 3 SLR 581. Also, in the second case mentioned, Chief Justice Yong Pung How had referred in paragraphs 4 and 18 of his judgment to a party having “instit......
-
Marites Dela Cruz Martinez v Ong May Lee
...“proceedings” in these provisions included private prosecutions. As Yong Pung How CJ explained in Cheng William v Loo Ngee Long Edmund [2001] 2 SLR(R) 626 at para 16 “Since the provisions refer to “any proceedings for any offence” and “criminal prosecutions and proceedings under this Code” ......