Koh Boo Ching v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Eric Tin Keng Seng
• Judgment Date: 24 October 2003
• Neutral Citation: [2003] SGMC 37
• Court: Magistrates' Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 18 November 2003
• Year: 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Liaw Jin Poh (Yeo Leong and Peh LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Station Inspector Sheik Alauddeen (Police Prosecutor)
• Citation: [2003] SGMC 37

1 This is an appeal against sentence by Koh Boo Ching (“Koh”) who had pleaded guilty before me to the following charge under s 353 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) (marked P1):

You…are charged that you on or about the 25^th day of June, 2003 at or about 1.05 am at car park of Blk 136 Potong Pasir Ave 3, Singapore, did use criminal force on a public servant, namely, one Jumarie Bin Jumahat, a Parking Enforcement Officer of the Housing Development Board, with intent to deter him from discharging his duty as such public servant, to wit, by shoving your right shoulder against the said Jumarie Bin Jumahat’s right shoulder, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 353 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

Summary of facts

2 I ascertained that he understood the nature and consequences of his plea. He admitted without any qualification to the statement of facts (marked A).

3 The facts revealed that on 25 June 2003 at about 1.05 am, Mr Jumarie Bin Jumahat (“Mr Jumarie”), a HDB parking enforcement officer attached to Toa Payoh Branch, was performing his duty. He was taking summons action against a stationary motorcar at the car park of Blk 136 Potong Pasir Avenue 3 when Koh, who resided at the same block of flats, approached him.

4 Koh then questioned Mr Jumarie if he was issuing a summons to the said car. He followed by telling Mr Jumarie to go home instead. Mr Jumarie then explained to Koh that he was just performing his duty. While Mr Jumarie was checking the summons printout, Koh accused Mr Jumarie of staring at him. Mr Jumarie denied. Koh then walked closer to Mr Jumarie and used his right shoulder to push Mr Jumarie’s right shoulder. On seeing this, Mr Jumarie tried to move away from Koh to avoid unnecessary confrontation. However, Koh kept moving closer to Mr Jumarie and continued shoving his right shoulder against Mr Jumarie’s right shoulder for another two occasions. Mr Jumarie tried to move further away from Koh but was challenged to a fight.

5 Mr Jumarie then called the police for assistance. Knowing that the police had been summoned, Koh uttered to Mr Jumarie, “Chicken, a bit also call police.” and walked away. Both were then interviewed when the police arrived.

Charge taken into consideration

6 After I pronounced Koh guilty and convicted as charged, Koh admitted to the following charge (marked P2) and consented for it to be taken into consideration for the purpose of sentence:

You… are charged that you on or about the 25^th day of June, 2003 at or about 1.05 am at car park of Blk 136 Potong Pasir Ave 3, Singapore, did use abusive words to one, Jumarie Bin Jumahat who is a Parking Enforcement Officer of Housing Development Board, a public servant, to wit, “Kua Si Mi Lan Chau, Chee Bye”, which literally mean in English as “See What Penis, Vagina”, in the execution of his duty as such public servant, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 13D(1)(a) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, Chapter 184.

Antecedents and mitigation

7 Koh had no criminal record.

8 In mitigation (written plea marked B), counsel informed the court that Koh, 39 years of age, was the sole breadwinner of the family. His wife was pregnant and they expected their first child in late October 2003. Koh had two other teenage children from a previous marriage.

9 Counsel highlighted the circumstances leading to the offence. It was very early in the morning and Koh was rather drunk having consumed a few cans of beer. He was exhausted and drowsy after a hard day’s work. He mistakenly thought Mr Jumarie was staring at him for no reason and wanted to find out why he was being stared at. Counsel submitted that Koh felt sorry for having used force on Mr Jumarie. It was said that he did not deliberately target Mr Jumarie or went out of his way to hurt him. No one was hurt and there was no property damage. The acts were committed in a “rash heated and impulsive moment” and irrational. Counsel urged me to consider that Koh cooperated fully with the police in investigations, had no previous conviction, and was remorseful. He also urged me not to impose a custodial sentence as his wife was due to deliver in October 2003 and he hoped to be with her.

Sentencing framework

10 Under s 353 of the Penal Code, Koh can be punished with imprisonment up to two years, or with fine, or with both. He had pleaded guilty to a “Magistrate’s Arrest Case” (“MAC” charge). Therefore, any fine I impose must not exceed $2,000: see s 11(5)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) and Chuah Gin Synn v PP [2003] SGHC 47.

11 Section 353 of the Penal Code was clearly designed to protect our public servants against threats or abuse so that they can execute their duties fearlessly. It was not disputed that Mr Jumarie, a HDB parking enforcement officer, was a public servant. Indeed, s 45 of the Housing and Development Act (Cap 129) deems all members and officers of HDB to be public servants within the meaning of the Penal Code. “Public servant” is widely defined in s 21 of the Penal Code. In my view, a HDB Parking Enforcement Officer should come under s 21(g) of the Penal Code, which reads,

every officer of Government whose duty it is, as such officer, to prevent offences, to give information of offences, to bring offenders to justice, or to protect the public health, safety or convenience is a public servant.

12 The only reported local case on s 353 of the Penal Code is Goh Ang Huat v PP [1996] 3 SLR 570. At first instance, the trial judge inter alia convicted the appellant of an offence under s 353 of the Penal Code. She found, after a trial, that the appellant had used criminal force by grabbing a CISCO officer’s shirt (uniform). The appellant was convicted and sentenced to 4 weeks’ imprisonment for this offence. The appeal was dismissed and the custodial sentence was affirmed.

13 In the Sentencing Practice in the Subordinate Courts (2^nd Ed), Lexis-Nexis Butterworths 2003, at p 617, the learned authors opined that “From the cases summarised, short terms of custody appear to be the norm where police officers are involved… The dominant consideration in sentencing would be the degree of force used.” The learned authors cited at pp 618-620 the unreported cases of Lee Peng Kong v PP (MA 249/94/01), Lim Leong Hock v PP (MA 171/96/01), Evariste Nduwayo v PP (MA 78/2001/01) and Tan Hock Chiang v PP (MA 284/2001/01) to show that where criminal force was directed at police officers, custodial sentences of 3 to 4 weeks were imposed. In one case, the custodial sentences of 2 offenders were substituted with fines on appeal: Toh Siew Poh & Anor v PP (MA 259/94/01-02). It would appear from the case summary that the circumstances giving rise to those offences were quite exceptional.

14 Besides Goh Ang Huat (supra) which concerned a CISCO officer, the learned authors also cited the unreported case, at p 617, of Lim Jiu Beck v PP (MA 293/92/01) where the public servant involved was not a police officer but a HDB parking warden. I believed there is no real distinction, save for the apparent difference in nomenclature, between the duties of a HDB parking warden and a HDB parking enforcement officer. In view of this, it would be useful to scrutinise the facts of this case as digested by the learned authors for comparison with our case.

15 In Lim Jiu Beck (supra), the offender was convicted after trial for an offence under s 353 of the Penal Code. The victim, a parking warden with the HDB, was doing her rounds at a car park at the material time. She noticed that a motor car did not have any parking coupon displayed except for a season parking coupon which was only valid for another area. She then issued a summons...