Cheng William v Loo Ngee Long Edmund

CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
JudgeYong Pung How CJ
Judgment Date30 July 2001
Neutral Citation[2001] SGHC 201
Citation[2001] SGHC 201
Defendant CounselBala Reddy and Toh Yung Cheong (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
Plaintiff CounselN Sreenivasan (Straits Law Practice LLC)
Published date07 November 2003
Docket NumberMagistrate's Appeal No 102 of 2001
Date30 July 2001
Subject MatterCriminal 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

: 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 provisions of the Penal Code provide as follows:

341 Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to $500, or with both.

352 Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months, or with fine which may extend to $500, or with both.

506 Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both; and if the threat is to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years or more, or impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, or with fine, or with both.



The facts

Both the appellant and respondent conduct business from units in a building complex called Balestier Point. The appellant operates a health centre and was the chairman of the Balestier Point Management Corporation at the material time. The respondent is a car dealer and parked cars which were offered for sale by his business at the car park of Balestier Point.

Some time before the incident occurred, the appellant had instituted rules which imposed a charge on the
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Aurol Anthony Sabastian v Sembcorp Marine Ltd
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 17 January 2013
    ...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
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 28 December 2007
    ...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......
  • Iskandar bin Rahmat v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 21 September 2021
    ...in Art 35(8) of the Constitution (see Attorney-General v Tee Kok Boon [2008] 2 SLR(R) 412; Cheng William v Loo Ngee Long Edmund [2001] 2 SLR(R) 626 at [15]–[17]). This stems from the Attorney-General’s “unique and integral role as the guardian of the public interest vis-à-vis the institutio......
  • Public Prosecutor v Sim Soon Kiat
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 25 February 2004
    ...and his plea of guilt. My Decision 22 In asking for a fine for the accused, counsel relied on William Cheng v Loo Ngee Long Edmund [2001] 3 SLR 581. In that case Cheng and Loo both had businesses at a building complex called Balestier Point. Cheng, who was the chairman of the management com......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION AND THE LEGAL LIMITS IN SINGAPORE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2013, December 2013
    • 1 December 2013
    ...court's decision, the Public Prosecutor is entitled to intervene and discontinue the proceedings: Cheng William v Loo Ngee Long Edmund[2001] 2 SLR(R) 626; Jasbir Kaur v Muktiar Singh[1999] 1 SLR(R) 616. 20 See Leonard Lim, “Death Penalty: Govt to Grant Judges Some Discretion”, The Straits T......
  • Administrative and Constitutional Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2013, December 2013
    • 1 December 2013
    ...interests of state and society’, with the Public Prosecutor determining what these interests are: Cheng William v Loo Ngee Long Edmund[2001] 2 SLR(R) 626 at [16]. 1.84 Section 10 of the CPC identifies certain offences requiring the prior consent of the Public Prosecutor. The court noted tha......
  • Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2001, December 2001
    • 1 December 2001
    ...witness”s police statement. Right of the Public Prosecutor to intervene in private summons 11.27 In Cheng William v Loo Ngee Long Edmund[2001] 3 SLR 581, the appellant commenced a private prosecution against the respondent for threatening him. Being dissatisfied with the fine imposed by the......
  • Administrative and Constitutional Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2001, December 2001
    • 1 December 2001
    ...An interesting issue on the Attorney-General”s power to discontinue criminal proceedings arose in Cheng William v Loo Ngee Long Edmund[2001] 3 SLR 581. This was a magistrate”s appeal before the High Court. An altercation had risen between the respondent car dealer and the appellant chairman......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT