Kula Mohamed Asia Beevi v Habeebah Bte Mydin Pillai

CourtMagistrates' Court (Singapore)
JudgeCarol Ling Feng Yong
Judgment Date14 January 2002
Neutral Citation[2002] SGMC 4
Citation[2002] SGMC 4
Published date19 September 2003

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

Plea

1. This is a private summons.

2. The Accused pleaded guilty to 2 charges, one under section 352 of the Penal Code and another under section 13A(1)(a) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, Cap 184 (hereafter "MOA").


Statement of Facts

3. Counsel for the Complainant did not deem it necessary to tender a Statement of Facts for either of the charges.

4. As per the charge in PSS 843/01, the Accused had spat at the Complainant whilst in Court number 14.

5. As per the charge in PSS 844/01, the facts were that the Accused had used threatening, abusive and insulting words against the Complainant whilst in Court by calling the latter "a prostitute", "a shameless woman", telling her to sleep with the policeman and the judge, threatening to kill the Complainant and the Accuseds own two children which the Complainant was looking after and saying that since the Complainant had survived assaults on four occasions, the Accused will make sure she does not survive the fifth. These words caused the Complainant alarm and distress.


Antecedents

6. Counsel for the Complainant informed the Court that the Accused had previous convictions of theft. Accused admitted to the antecedents and raised no dispute.


Mitigation

7. In mitigation, the Accused essentially pleaded for leniency, stating that she was remorseful and had to look after her mother and child.


Sentence

8. On the section 352 Penal Code charge, I imposed the maximum fine of $500. For the offence under the MOA, I imposed a fine of $3,000. The sum of fines imposed was $3,500.

9. In ordering the above fines, I took into account the fact that the Complainant and the Accused were in reality sisters-in-law. This is a case whereby relationships within the family had turned truly sour. I considered the act of spitting and the words uttered by the Accused on the material day, in that context of an extremely strained relationship between family members, brought to its climax in a court setting. Amongst a string of abusive terms used on the Complainant on the material day, it was also apparent that the threats which were uttered in the same breath were but empty threats, given the fact that they were uttered in 1999 and till the day of the mention before me, nothing untoward (that the Court knew of, at least) had happened to the Complainant.

10. In pleading guilty to both the charges before me, the Accused had admitted without reservation what she had done...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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