Public Prosecutor v Chew Kim Soon

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Wong Li Tien
• Judgment Date: 10 June 2004
• Neutral Citation: [2004] SGMC 5
• Court: Magistrates' Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 14 June 2004
• Year: 2004
• Plaintiff Counsel: INSP A. Majeed Yusoff
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Mervyn Tan (Mervyn Tan and Co)
• Citation: [2004] SGMC 5

10 June 2004

Magistrate Wong Li Tein:

1 This is an appeal against sentence by Chew Kim Soon (“the accused”) for an offence under section 353 of the Penal Code (Chapter 224) (“section 353”). The accused pleaded guilty before me on 3 May 2004 to the charge as follows:

“You

CHEW KIM SOON, M/49 YRS

NRIC No. S0056959-C

are charged that you, on the 13^th day of June 2003, at about 10.50pm, along North Bridge Road, Singapore, which is a public place, did use criminal force towards a public servant, one Edmund Tan, a Police Sergeant, with intent to deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, to wit, by pushing him, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 353 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.”

2 I ascertained that the accused understood the nature and consequences of his plea. He also admitted without any qualifications to the amended Statement of Facts (marked “P2”).

Statement of Facts

3 The facts revealed that on 13 June 2003 at about 10.45pm, Mr Edmund Tan Kang Poh (“Sgt Tan”), a police sergeant, was driving a police vehicle along North Bridge Road with his partner. Suddenly, the vehicle driven by the accused cut into his lane. Sgt Tan sounded his horn at the accused and the accused drove his vehicle back into his original lane.

4 When both vehicles reached the traffic junction, Sgt Tan sounded his horn at the accused and signalled for the accused to pull over at the side of the road. The accused did so and Sgt Tan then approached him for his identity card and driver’s licence. The accused handed these documents to him. While Sgt Tan was waiting for his partner to take a breath analyser test from the accused, he was involved in a verbal exchange with the accused. The accused moved towards Sgt Tan and pushed him in the chest. The accused was subsequently placed under arrest.

Charge Taken into Consideration

5 The accused also admitted to and consented for the second charge (MAC 9076/2003) against him under the same section of the Penal Code to be taken into consideration for purposes of sentencing. The second charge stated that he had used abusive language against the same police sergeant, namely Sgt Tan, during the execution of his duty as a public servant.

Antecedents and Mitigation

6 The accused has three previous convictions. He was convicted for inconsiderate driving in 1979 and mischief in 1982. He was convicted for an offence under section 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act for driving under the influence of alcohol on 10 February 2004 and fined $2,200.00 with a ban from driving all classes of vehicles for 2 years. This third previous conviction was for an offence which occurred at the same date, time and place as the current offence which the accused faced before me.

7 Counsel for Defence tendered written mitigation submissions (marked “B”) to the Court. He highlighted that the accused had over-reacted to Sgt Tan’s questioning as he felt that those questions were directed at his wife, who is a Chinese national. He felt the need to protect his wife as she did not speak much English and that the officer was treating her like an illegal immigrant. Defence Counsel submitted that:

“On the occasion in question, the accused was worried as the officer concerned had seemed to further direct enquiries to his wife. He was concerned as to whether a misunderstanding would occur as his wife did not speak English. The impression given to him (the accused) was that the officer was treating his wife as an illegal immigrant…He regrets his indiscretions and admitted that he had done them at the spur of the moment as he felt that he had to stand up for his wife. He was very fearful that she would be arrested and had acted without thinking of the consequences of his folly…He felt overly protective of his wife as she was a foreigner in Singapore.”

8 Defence Counsel also highlighted to me that the accused was intoxicated at the time of the incident. In fact, he was convicted and sentenced for driving under the influence of alcohol under section 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act on 10 February 2004 as stated above. It was submitted that “[His] intoxication had caused him to be reckless, hence his bad behaviour”.

Sentencing Considerations

9 The maximum sentence for an offence under Section 353 of the Penal Code is a fine of $2,000.00 or imprisonment or both. In sentencing the accused I indicated some of these considerations. I will now elaborate.

10 Section 353 of the Penal Code is clearly meant to protect public servants who have the vital task of ensuring that law and order within society is maintained. It was designed to ensure that public servants are not abused or threatened in the course of their work so that they can perform their duties without fear of threat and abuse. In this case, the public servant is a police sergeant who, after noticing the accused’s driving, was going to have the accused tested for his blood alcohol level. The accused was aggressive towards Sgt Tan while waiting for the breath analyser test.

11 It is obvious that Sgt Tan wanted to conduct the test on the accused because he had observed the accused’s driving earlier and came to the conclusion that based on the...