District Judge Ng Peng Hong:
Introduction
The accused Gavin Liang Shaohui (“Gavin”) and Neo Keng Hock (“Neo”) are appealing against their respective conviction and sentence in respect of the offence of using criminal force on a public servant, an offence punishable under Section 353 of the Penal Code (the “s353 offence”).
Gavin is also appealing against his sentence imposed for the offence of using abusive words towards a public servant, an offence punishable under Section 6(3) of the Protection from Harassment Act (“POHA”).
Gavin was sentenced to a jail term of 6 weeks’ imprisonment and fined $3000. Neo was sentenced to an imprisonment term of 4 weeks.
The accused persons were father and son. The son, Gavin, claimed trial to one charge and pleaded guilty to the POHA charge.
Gavin’s Charges
Gavin was convicted after he had claimed trial to the following charge:
| |
|
| Charge no. | Details |
| DAC-927907-2019 | are charged that you, on 5 June 2019, at or about 12:40am, along Yung An Road, Singapore, a public place, did use criminal force on a public servant, namely, one Inspector Yow Meng Pun, a Police Officer of the Singapore Police Force, in the execution of his duty as a police officer, to wit, by using your hand to push Yow Meng Pun’s upper body area, with the intent to deter the said public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 353 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224. |
After his conviction on the charge stated above, Gavin pleaded guilty to the following POHA charge:
| |
|
| Charge no. | Details |
| MAC-910042-2019 | are charged that you, on the 5 June, 2019 at or about 12:40am, along Yung An Road, Singapore, did use abusive words towards a public servant, namely, one Inspector Yow Meng Pun, a Police Officer of the Singapore Police Force, in the execution of his duty as a police officer, to wit, by uttering the words “Fuck You”, “Who the fuck do you think you are” and “Idiot” to the said Yow Meng Pun, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6(3) of the Protection from Harassment Act, Chapter 256A (Rev. Ed. 2015). |
Neo’s Charge
The accused Neo was convicted after he had claimed trial to the following charge:
| |
|
| Charge no. | Details |
| DAC-927912-2019 | are charged that you, on the 5th day of June, 2019 at or about 12:40am, along Yung An Road, Singapore, did use criminal force on a public servant, namely, one Inspector Yow Meng Pun, a Police Officer of the Singapore Police Force, in the execution of his duty as a police officer, to wit, by using your hand to push Yow Meng Pun’s upper body area, with the intent to deter the said public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 353 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224. |
Statement of Facts for POHA Charge
In respect of the POHA charge, Gavin admitted to the following Statement of Facts (“SOF”) without qualification:
| |
| Statement of Facts |
| PERSONS INVOLVED 1 The accused is Gavin Liang Shaohui, a male Singaporean, 29 years old. He is a police reservist officer at Jurong Police Divisional HQ. 2 The first witness is Neo Keng Hock, a male Singapore, 56 years old. He is the father of the accused. 3 The victim is Yow Meng Pung, an Inspector with the Singapore Police Force. On 5 June 2019, the victim was a deputy team leader of the Ground Response Force in Jurong West NPC. He is a public servant. At the material time, he was performing ground patrol duty shift. 4 The second witness is Muhammad Syabil Bin Baharudin (“Syabil”), a reservist police sergeant. At the material time, he was performing ground patrol duty shift as the victim’s partner. BACKGROUND FACTS 5 On the evening of 4 June 2019, the accused person was having dinner with the first witness, the accused’s stepmother, and a group of friends at a Taman Jurong hawker centre, which continued into a drinking session thereafter. Spirits were high as the following day was Hari Raya Haji, a public holiday, and they would not have to work. 6 After the drinking session ended at about midnight, the accused booked a Grab private-hire car to send himself, the first witness, and the accused’s stepmother (the “three persons”) home from Taman Jurong. After the Grab private-hire car arrived and the three persons had boarded, the accused entered into a heated dispute with the Grab private-hire driver, in which the accused used vulgarities against the driver. 7 The accused and the first witness then spotted the victim and the second witness’s patrol car. Wanting to seek police assistance to resolve the dispute, the three persons and the Grab private-hire driver proceeded to alight from the Grab private-hire car and approach the patrol car, where they were met by the victim and the second witness. PERTAINING TO THE CHARGE (MAC-910042-2019) 8 On 5 June 2019, at about 12:30am, along Yung An Road, the victim and second witness engaged the three persons and the Grab private-hire driver to determine the facts of the situation. These events were captured in the body-worn camera footage of the victim (admitted as P1). 9 During the course of the engagement, the accused was confrontational towards the victim, and did not cooperate with police requests to provide his particulars. He also repeatedly stepped close towards the victim and spoke to him in a challenging manner: a. P1 at 00:32:53 – The accused steps forward towards the victim within half-an arm’s length distance, and blocks his view of the first witness. At the same time he asks the victim “what is the issue” in a challenging manner; b. P1 at 00:34:43 – The accused again steps forward towards the victim within less than a half-arm’s length as he challenges the victim “then what you want”; c. P1 at 00:34:52 – The accused moves even closer towards the victim, now just a palm-sized distance from the victim, and stares confrontationally at the victim and says “then”; d. P1 at 00:35:02 – The accused tells the victim to “Don’t talk so much”, and deliberately ignores the victim thereafter to speak to Syabil (“I am not talking to you, I am talking to him”). 10 After the victim engaged the Grab private-hire driver, the victim decided to let the driver leave, before the victim returned to speak with the three persons. 11 The first witness then noticed the Grab private-hire driver leaving, and was unhappy that he was allowed to do so. The accused was similarly very angry at the victim for allowing the driver to leave without consulting him and the first witness, and also because his dispute had not yet been resolved. 12 At this point, the accused, in anger, used the abusive words “fuck you” and “who the fuck do you think you are” and “idiot” to the victim (P1 at 00:39:59) The words were used on the victim while he was performing his patrol duty in the execution of his duty as a public servant. 13. By virtue of the foregoing, the accused has committed an offence under s 6(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev. Ed.) which is punishable under s 6(3) of the same Act. |
The Background
The background to the offences for which both the accused claimed trial can be found in the SOF for the POHA charge.
The Case for the Defence
Gavin’s defence was that any contact between his hand and the victim was accidentally caused by the victim moving forward towards him. Neo, on the other hand, denied any contact with the victim. He alleged that he merely stretched out his hand at the material time to grab his son and pull him away from the victim to prevent any contact.
The accused persons gave evidence in their own defence. One Tan See Hua, a senior language specialist with the Criminal Investigation Department, was also required by the Defence to give evidence.
The Prosecution’s Case
The Prosecution relied on the evidence of the victim (Yow Meng Pung) who was a police inspector and his partner one Muhammad Syabil Bin Baharudin (“Syabil”), a Police Sergeant. The Prosecution also relied on the video footage (exhibit P1) captured by the victim’s body-worn camera (“BWC”). The audio transcription of the footage can be found in exhibit P2. The Prosecution had also admitted by consent the conditioned statements of some witnesses including Tan See Hua. These witnesses were respectively involved in the procuring of the body worn camera footage of the victim, compiling it into one single video file, and in the translation and transcription of P1.
The Prosecution also called the Grab driver Zakariah Kassim (“Zakariah”) to give evidence and to produce his in-car video footage. See exhibits P4A, P4B and P4C.
The footages from the BWC and the in-car camera were screened in court.
The Offence
Section 353 of the Penal Code reads as follows:
353. Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 4 years, or with fine, or with both.
The elements to be proven for a conviction on a s 353 charge are: that the victim of the criminal force was a public servant; that the accused used criminal force to such public servant; that the accused used criminal force on the public servant when the latter was in the execution of his duty as such public servant.
In the present case, it was clear that the victim was a public servant in the execution of his duty. In fact, both the victim and his partner Syabil were in police uniform and were in a patrol car before they...
