Gan Sim Lim v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 13 June 2005
• Neutral Citation: [2005] SGHC 107
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 16 of 2005
• Date: 13 June 2005
• Published date: 15 June 2005
• Year: 2005
• Plaintiff Counsel: KR Manickavasagam (Manicka and Co)
• Citation: [2005] SGHC 107
• Defendant Counsel: Tan Kiat Pheng (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Sentencing,Appeal against conviction and sentence for offences of criminal intimidation, voluntarily causing hurt and theft,Whether trial judge erring in accepting complainant's and prosecution witnesses' testimonies over appellant's testimony,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Whether custodial sentences for various offences to run concurrently or consecutively,Appeal,Whether two weeks' imprisonment adequate considering aggravated nature of assault,Appeals,Appellant sentenced to two weeks' imprisonment for offence of voluntarily causing hurt to run concurrently with other custodial sentences

13 June 2005

Yong Pung How CJ:

1 This was an appeal from the decision of District Judge Toh Yung Cheong, who convicted the appellant on three charges under ss 506 (criminal intimidation), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 379 (theft) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed). The appellant was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment for criminal intimidation, two weeks’ imprisonment for voluntarily causing hurt and a fine of $800, in default eight days’ imprisonment, for theft. The custodial sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2 The appeal was brought against conviction and sentence. I heard the appeal and dismissed it. Additionally, I ordered the sentence of two weeks’ imprisonment, imposed in relation to the charge of voluntarily causing hurt, to be enhanced to three months, and for the custodial sentences to run consecutively. I now give the reasons for my decision.

The facts

3 The appellant was, previously, the boyfriend of the complainant, Miss Kher Wai Fun (“Kher”), a stewardess with Singapore Airlines. Kher was staying in a condominium apartment at Ballota Park (“the condominium”). Sometime in October 2004, Kher ended her relationship with the appellant. On 14 November 2004, at about 10.00pm, the appellant contacted Kher and asked to meet her. Kher agreed on condition that they met at a public area, such as the poolside at the condominium, as she did not feel safe meeting the appellant at her apartment. The appellant agreed.

4 However, when Kher opened the door to her apartment to proceed to meet the appellant at the poolside, she found the appellant standing right outside her apartment. The appellant then entered the apartment and both parties had an argument, upon which Kher told the appellant to leave. Instead, the appellant grabbed Kher’s handphone (a Nokia 6610 valued at $400) and left for his car. Kher followed the appellant and asked him to return her handphone or at least the simcard. Kher also requested the security guards at the condominium’s guardhouse to prevent the appellant from leaving. However, the appellant managed to drive away.

5 Kher then used the phone at the guardhouse to call her friend, Terence Ng Chee Loon (“Terence”). She informed Terence about what had happened and Terence arrived at the condominium a few minutes later. Kher used Terence’s handphone to call her own handphone. The appellant answered the call and Kher demanded that the appellant return her handphone. The appellant refused and insisted that he wanted to meet her. During this conversation, Kher realised that the appellant was with her colleague, Ivan Bay Yong Meng (“Ivan”). Kher agreed to talk to the appellant, but wanted Ivan to come along. The appellant agreed and both men left to meet Kher.

6 When the appellant and Ivan arrived at the condominium, they were stopped by the security guard. The appellant got frustrated and quarrelled with the security guard for about five minutes, after which they were allowed to proceed. When they arrived at Kher’s apartment, Kher once again demanded that the appellant return her handphone. The appellant refused, saying it was not with him. Kher tried to search the appellant to recover her handphone and a scuffle ensued.

7 In the midst of this, Kher picked up a television remote control and threw it at the appellant, striking his forehead. She then searched the appellant’s pocket, found his car keys and ran out of her apartment towards the appellant’s car. The appellant tried to follow her, but was stopped by Ivan and Terence. There was a struggle between the three men, during which the appellant managed to grab the keys to Kher’s apartment. The appellant also pushed Terence aside, and the latter fell onto a flowerpot outside Kher’s apartment. The appellant then ran after Kher.

8 By this time, Kher had arrived at the condominium’s carpark, where she met Lawrence Ng Chee Meng (“Lawrence”), who was Terence’s brother. Terence had earlier called Lawrence and asked to meet him at the condominium. Both Kher and Lawrence then started to search the appellant’s car for the handphone but could not find it. When they saw the appellant approaching them, with Ivan and Terence following behind, Lawrence stepped forward and blocked the appellant’s path. The appellant grabbed Lawrence’s neck and raised his left hand to punch Lawrence. Fortunately, both Kher and Terence managed to talk the appellant out of this, and he let go of Lawrence. Subsequently, Terence, Lawrence and Ivan left the condominium.

9 Kher ran back to her apartment, locked the front door and windows and entered the bedroom. The appellant followed Kher and started to bang and kick at the front door when he realised that Kher had locked it. He then used the keys he had grabbed earlier to enter the apartment, and tried to open the bedroom door by swiping at the lock with a piece of cardboard. Kher managed to snatch away the cardboard. The appellant started to kick the bedroom door, and Kher ran into the toilet and locked herself inside. The appellant managed to break into the bedroom and tried to open the toilet door. Left with no choice, Kher opened the door, whereupon the appellant barged in, pushed her into the bathtub and tried to strangle her.

10 He then pulled her into the bedroom and started to kick, punch and slap her. Kher screamed for help and tried to run away. However, the appellant managed to grab her and proceeded to throw her about on the floor, where he continued to kick and punch her. The appellant then picked up a pair of scissors from a desk in the bedroom and pointed it at Kher, saying “I’ll kill you” and “Do you believe I’ll kill you?” Kher testified that she believed the appellant would indeed carry out his threat and that she was willing to comply if he made any demands.

11 Suddenly, the appellant started to pant very hard and collapsed onto the floor, swinging his arms and legs as if he was having a fit. Kher tried to see if he was all right but he did not respond. She then took the scissors, moved it away from the appellant and ran barefoot out of the apartment to the guardhouse, where she met security guard Kim Aik Guan (“Kim”). Kher explained the situation to Kim, whereupon the latter dialled for the police and passed the phone to Kher.

12 Sergeant Lim Wai Leong Lynyrd (“Sgt Lim”) and Corporal Ang Guek Leng arrived shortly after and met Kher. Sgt Lim observed that Kher was in a state of shock and noticed some scratch marks on her arms, neck and nose. He interviewed her and, after gathering the necessary information, proceeded to the apartment with her. Kher tried to open the front door, but it was locked and she did not have the keys to the apartment.

13 However, a few minutes later, the appellant opened the door. Sgt Lim testified that the appellant smelt of alcohol, and appeared uncooperative and rude. The appellant told Sgt Lim not to interfere in a “relationship problem” and to mind his own business. After making some inquiries of both parties, Sgt Lim proceeded to place the appellant under arrest. He gave Kher a medical examination form and advised her to go to a government hospital. A pair of scissors was seized from the bathroom.

14 The next morning, Kher saw her company doctor, Dr Yap Chin Vie (“Dr Yap”). Dr Yap prepared two reports on Kher’s condition. The first report described that Kher had suffered contusions and lacerations that were consistent with soft tissue injury. The second report stated that Kher was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. The appellant too received medical treatment for swelling over the left forehead, bruises, scratches and other minor injuries. In the opinion of Dr Phoo Wai Heng, the doctor who attended to the appellant, the severity of the injuries suffered by him and Kher were comparable.

The trial below

15 The appellant elected to testify in his defence. He claimed that he only wanted to meet Kher at the material time because he had a buyer for some duty-free cigarettes which belonged to Kher. Kher allegedly left six cartons of cigarettes outside her apartment, which the appellant collected and placed in his car. The appellant then called Kher and insisted that she meet up with him to talk, failing which he would call the police and inform them about the duty-unpaid cigarettes.

16 Kher complied and the appellant entered the apartment. While they were in the apartment, an argument broke out, during which the appellant asked Kher for her handphone. Kher refused and the appellant proceeded to pick up the phone from a table in the apartment. He claimed that he only took the handphone because he wished to read the messages stored in it. The appellant then left the condominium and met Ivan. He informed Ivan that he wanted to report Kher to the police regarding the duty-unpaid cigarettes, but Ivan managed to talk him out of this.

17 The appellant then received a call from Kher, following which he and Ivan went to the condominium. The appellant denied that he had had an argument with the security guard, and claimed that the security guard had in fact advised him to have a “good talk” with Kher. The appellant alleged that when he and Ivan entered Kher’s apartment, the latter began to yell and scream at him. He claimed that she slapped and punched him and asked for her handphone. Subsequently, Terence entered the apartment.

18 At this point, Kher ran out of the apartment, while Ivan and Terence subdued the appellant. The appellant managed to break free and grabbed hold of the keys to the apartment. He ran towards the carpark, where he saw Kher and Lawrence searching his car. A little while later, Kher ran back to her apartment and Ivan, Terence and Lawrence left the condominium. The appellant then checked his car and discovered that the six cartons of cigarettes were missing. He got angry and went back to Kher’s apartment, entering the bedroom to search for the cigarettes.

19 The appellant alleged that Kher started to punch and kick him...