Public Prosecutor v Fok Jun Hong Johnson

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Wong Choon Ning
• Judgment Date: 27 May 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] SGMC 19
• Court: Magistrates' Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 09 October 2013,23 April 2015,06 May 2015,06 August 2013,05 May 2015,25 March 2014,08 April 2014,16 March 2015,28 January 2014,30 January 2014,08 October 2013,11 October 2013,08 January 2015,03 April 2014,29 January 2014,05 November 2014,25 February 2015,27 November 2014,09 April 2014,07 January 2014,06 January 2014,04 April 2014,07 August 2013,30 September 2013
• Docket Number: MAC No 500048 of 2012
• Plaintiff Counsel: Marshall Lim
• Defendant Counsel: Terence Hua (Anthony Law Corporation) and Shiever Subramaniam Ramachandran (Grays LLC)
• Published date: 07 June 2016

District Judge Wong Choon Ning:

The accused was convicted, after a trial, on the following charge :-

MAC 500048/2012 (Exh. C2A )

“You, Fok Jun Hong Johnston Male / 28 years (D.O.B. YY/YY/YYYY) SXXXXXXXX Singaporean

are charged that you, on the 12th day of May 2012, at about 5.45 am, at along Yishun Avenue 5, Singapore, did voluntarily cause hurt to one Liew Su Yeow, to wit, by punching the said Liew Su Yeow once on the left side of his face, and once on the left eye and once on his chest, causing the said Liew Su Yeow to suffer swelling and pain on the left side of his face and pain on his chest and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 323 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed).”

He also admitted to, and consented to having taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing, the following charge :-

MAC 500049/2012 (Exh. C1A )

“You, Fok Jun Hong Johnston Male / 28 years (D.O.B. YY/YY/YYYY) SXXXXXXXX Singaporean

are charged that you, on the 12th day of May 2012, at about 6.15 am, at Yishun Neighbourhood Police Centre, 31 Yishun Central, Singapore, which is a public place did behave in a disorderly manner, to wit, by shouting loudly and challenging Police officers to arrest you, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, (Cap 184, 1997 Rev Ed).”

After hearing the defence’s mitigation plea and the prosecution’s address on sentence, I sentenced the accused to 3 months’ imprisonment. Pursuant to Section 359(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, Rev Ed 2012), I further ordered the accused to pay $976.46 by way of compensation to the victim, Mr Liew Su Yeow, or to serve in default of payment 9 days’ imprisonment.

The defence is dissatisfied with the orders of conviction and sentence and now appeals against them. The compensation order has been stayed pending the hearing of the appeal.

PROSECUTION’S CASE

The prosecution called a total of nine witnesses. These were the taxi-driver who had been assaulted by the accused, two police officers who were present at the neighbourhood police centre when the victim sought assistance there after the assault, an ambulance paramedic who had attended to the victim at the scene, four doctors who gave evidence about the victim’s injuries, and the Investigation Officer of the case. A third police officer who had been present at the neighbourhood police centre at the material time was offered as a witness by the prosecution to the defence, but the accused declined to call her as his witness.

Evidence of the taxi-driver (PW 1)

Mr Liew Su Yeow (PW 1) testified that, on 12 May 2012, at about 5 am, he was driving along Clarke Quay when a couple, who was hugging each other, hailed his taxi.¹ The accused and his female companion (hereinafter referred to as “the lady”) occupied the rear compartment of the taxi. The lady boarded the taxi first and sat directly behind PW 1, while the accused sat on her left. PW 1 was then directed to proceed to Yishun Avenue 5.

PW 1 gave evidence that the lady looked sober when she boarded his taxi.² At the initial stage, the couple engaged in intimate behaviour by continuing to hug each other at the rear seat. PW 1 was able to witness this whenever he occasionally looked at the rear view window and side mirrors in the course of his driving to look out for vehicles coming from behind and around him. Subsequently, PW 1 heard the couple talk very loudly, using vulgarities, before they sat apart from each other.³ PW 1 believed that they must have quarrelled. At the later stage, the lady was lying on one side but, from his seat behind the wheel, PW 1 could not see whether she was sleeping then.⁴

In order to proceed to Yishun Avenue 5, PW 1 had first driven his taxi along Yishun Avenue 2 before turning into Yishun Ring Road. Thereafter, PW 1 drove along Yishun Ring Road towards the direction of Yishun Avenue 5.⁵ When he was about to reach Yishun Avenue 5, near the spot marked as “A1” in the map (D1A), PW 1 asked the accused where he would like the taxi to stop.⁶ The accused instructed PW 1 to drive further down the road to stop in front of Chong Pang Community Centre.⁷ Nevertheless, even though the accused indicated this orally, he was actually pointing with his finger towards a spot slightly beyond Chong Pang Community Centre, further down Yishun Ring Road.⁸ At this point, the accused was seated somewhere in the middle of the rear seat.⁹ PW 1 was positive that the accused did not ever mention any block number or instruct him to stop at Blk 108.

PW 1 then stopped his taxi at around the spot marked as “A2” in the map (D1A), which was along Yishun Ring Road, slightly after Chong Pang Community Centre and near to Blk 108. PW 1 then turned around and asked for payment of the fare which amounted to $27.80. When the accused handed over a card to make payment, PW 1 made his apologies and explained that his taxi was not equipped with a machine which could accept card payment. At that time, the accused was seated more towards the edge of his seat, right in the middle of the two front seats of the taxi.¹⁰ The accused refused to accept PW 1’s explanation and he insisted that the taxi had a machine for accepting card payment. PW 1 testified that he then explained many times to the accused, by speaking in both English and Mandarin, that there was really no machine in his taxi which could accept card payment. He also pointed to various parts of his taxi to highlight the fact that his taxi did not bear the sticker to indicate that the taxi was equipped to accept card payment. The accused nevertheless insisted that there was such a machine in the taxi and he kept pushing his card towards PW 1. He even accused PW 1 of cheating and said thaat he would make a report against PW 1.

PW 1 gave evidence that, during this exchange, he had offered to drive the accused for free to the nearest ATM to withdraw cash and then back to the same spot. PW 1 explained that this was an offer which he would sometimes make to his passengers when they did not have sufficient cash and wanted to make payment by card. But the accused did not deign to give a reply to his offer.¹¹ When the accused said that he would make a report against PW 1, the latter suggested to the accused that he could settle the fare first and then use the receipt (which would bear the registration number of the victim’s taxi) to make his complaint at the Land Transport Authority. The accused was, however, adamant that he would not pay for the fare if PW 1 would not accept card payment. As a result, when the accused said that he wanted to go to the police station to settle the matter, PW 1 decided to drive him there. PW 1 remembered that there was a police station behind Northpoint and he hence proceeded further down Yishun Ring Road where, at a spot marked as “B” in the map (D1A), he made a U-turn to travel along the opposite side of Yishun Ring Road, before turning left and coming onto Yishun Avenue 5 to head towards Northpoint. When he was travelling on the opposite side of Yishun Ring Road, PW 1 saw that there was actually a police post (that is, Chong Pang NPP), but the lights were switched off, indicating that it had closed for the night.¹² PW 1 hence continued to head towards the police post behind Northpoint (that is, Yishun North NPC).

During cross-examination, the defence put to PW 1 its case that, when the accused expressed his wish to go to the police station, PW 1 had shouted at the accused not to waste his time and that, when the accused insisted on going to the police station, PW 1 had angrily slammed his hand on the steering wheel before stepping on the accelerator and driving at a very fast speed, thereby putting the accused in fear for his own life and that of his female companion. PW 1 denied these allegations. He explained that he was quite happy to drive the accused to the police station as, at that hour, it would not be that easy to pick up passengers, his home was actually near Yishun North NPC and he knew that the police would allow the taxi meter to continue running while the passenger went to withdraw his money which meant that PW 1 would receive more for his fare at the end of the day.¹³ PW 1 also gave evidence that, at that stage when he was driving towards the police station, the speed of his taxi was not more than 50 km/h.¹⁴

After turning into Yishun Avenue 5, when they were near to the junction with Yishun Street 11, where there was a Shell petrol station on the left of the taxi, the accused asked PW 1 where they were heading.¹⁵ PW 1, who saw an ATM sign at the Shell petrol station, suggested to the accused that he could withdraw cash at the ATM there instead of proceeding to the police station. The accused rejected the suggestion and hence PW 1 continued to head towards the police station.

At a traffic light crossing along Yishun Avenue 5, PW 1 stopped his taxi in compliance with the red traffic lights. When they turned green, PW 1 started to move the taxi when suddenly the accused punched him on his left temple. The force of the blow caused PW 1’s head to knock against the glass window of the driver’s door on his right. PW 1 felt giddy and his taxi began to swerve whilst in motion along the road. PW 1 testified that, at this point, his top priority was to ensure the safety of everyone in his taxi and he thought of his children who were dependent on him. PW 1 tried his best to retain control of his taxi. PW 1 could recall that, at one point, his taxi had actually veered to another lane and he had to steer the taxi back to the correct lane.¹⁶ Fortunately, there were no vehicles travelling around him and PW 1 was able to avoid an accident.

PW 1 testified that, at this point, he saw that the traffic lights at the next traffic light crossing were red. His plans were to stop the taxi at the...