Public Prosecutor v Hew Soo Fun, Cheryl

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Luke Tan
• Judgment Date: 24 November 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] SGMC 55
• Court: Magistrates' Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Magistrates Arrest Case No 902017 of 2019, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9866/2020/01
• Published date: 17 December 2020
• Year: 2020
• Hearing Date: 03 November 2020
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Edwin Soh
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Michael Moey/Ms Glenda Lim (M/s Moey & Yuen)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law and Sentencing,Penal Code,Voluntary Causing Hurt,Public Transport Worker
• Citation: [2020] SGMC 55

District Judge Luke Tan: Introduction

A New Year’s Eve party on 31 December 2017 took a turn for the worse for Ms Hew Soo Fun, Cheryl (“the accused”) when, after consuming alcohol and becoming inebriated, she allegedly committed a rash act against the Grab car driver who was hired to drive her home. In addition, it was alleged that the accused had thereafter voluntarily caused hurt to the same victim, Mr Dayalan (“the victim”), following which she also used criminal force against him.

For her actions, the Prosecution tendered three charges against her for offences under the Penal Code (Chapter 224, 2008 Rev Ed) as follows: First Charge [MAC 92016-2019] under section 336(a) for committing a rash act; Second Charge [MAC 92017-2019] under section 323 for voluntarily causing hurt; and Third Charge [MAC 92018-2019] under section 352 for using criminal force.

The three charges read: First Charge [MAC 92016-2019]

“You are charged that you, on the 1st day of January 2018, at or about 3.45am, on board a Grab car SLJ3107L, driving along East Coast Parkway (“ECP”), Singapore, did commit an act so rashly as to endanger the personal safety of others, to wit, by pulling the shirt of the said car’s driver Dayalan S/O Srinivasa Naidu while he was driving, knowing by such action you risked causing an accident, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 336(a) of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.”

Second Charge [MAC 92017-2019]:

“You are charged that you, on the 1st day of January 2018, at around 3.59am, at the ESSO Petrol Kiosk located at No. 396 Telok Blangah Road, Singapore, did voluntarily cause hurt to Dayalan S/O Srinivasa Naidu (“Dayalan”), to wit, by hitting the right upper back and right arm of Dayalan several times with your hands, which caused bodily pain to Dayalan, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 323 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.”

Third Charge [MAC 92018-2019]

“You…are charged that you, on the 1st day of January 2018, at or about 4.00am, at the ESSO Petrol Kiosk located at No. 396 Telok Blangah Road, Singapore, did use criminal force on Dayalan S/O Srinivasa Naidu (“Dayalan”), to wit, by repeatedly pulling the shirt of Dayalan without Dayalan’s consent, otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation given by Dayalan, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 352 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224

Before me, the accused, a first offender, pleaded guilty to the second and third charges (“proceeded charges”) and consented to have the first charge taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing (“TIC charge”).

The Prosecution sought a 2-week imprisonment sentence for the s 323 charge for voluntarily causing hurt, and a $1,500 fine for the s 352 charge of using criminal force. The Defence argued that in respect of the offences, a conditional discharge, a heavy fine, or a short detention order of not more than 7 days should be imposed instead.

Having considered the particulars of the charges, the facts admitted to by the accused, the submissions of the parties, and the authorities and precedent cases that were referred to, I sentenced the accused to 10 days’ imprisonment for the second charge under s 323, and a $1,000 fine for the third charge under s 352.

Thereafter, counsel indicated that the accused was filing an appeal against the custodial sentence that I had imposed for the second charge and sought a stay of execution for this sentence. I granted both the stay of execution as well as bail pending appeal.

As for the $1,000 fine that I had imposed for the third charge, this was not inconsistent with counsel’s submission (in the alternative) for a fine to be imposed. It was also lower than the $1,500 fine sought by the Prosecution, which was itself based on sentences imposed in two precedent cases. It was thus unsurprising that counsel confirmed that the accused was not filing an appeal against the fine imposed.¹ The accused paid the $1,000 fine on the same day.

As the appeal is only in respect of the sentence of 10 days’ imprisonment imposed for the s 323 charge, for the purposes of my Grounds of Decision, I will focus solely on my reasons for imposing this sentence.

Statement of Facts

The accused admitted to the Statement of Facts (SOF) without qualification. I have reproduced the SOF, with some parts underlined and highlighted in bold for emphasis.

Statement of Facts

1. The accused is Hew Soo Fun, Cheryl (date of birth: 28 April 1979). 2. The victim is Dayalan s/o Srinivasa Naidu (“Dayalan”). At the material time, Dayalan was working as a private hire driver for Grab.

Facts relating to the 2nd Charge (MAC-902017-2019)

3. On 31 December 2017, at around 7pm, the accused attended a New Years’ Eve party at her friend’s place at 102 Haig Road. The accused consumed champagne and became inebriated. 4. At around 3.30am on 1 January 2018, the accused’s friend, Grace Chong, booked a Grab car to drive the accused home. Dayalan picked up the accused from 102 Haig Road and proceeded to drive to the accused’s residence at 16 Morse Road. Dayalan was driving a Honda Vezel SLJ3107L. 5. While Dayalan was driving, the accused became agitated in her inebriated state. The accused said that Dayalan was driving the wrong way and started shouting at Dayalan. 6. As the accused was behaving aggressively, Dayalan decided to drive to a petrol kiosk near the accused’s residence to seek assistance. 7. At around 3.50am on 1 January 2018, Dayalan stopped his car at an ESSO petrol kiosk at Telok Blangah road. Dayalan alighted from his vehicle and tried to look for assistance. The accused alighted as well. 8. Subsequently, at around 3.59am, Dayalan walked towards the convenience store at the petrol kiosk. The accused followed closely behind Dayalan. The accused then started hitting Dayalan multiple times on his right upper back and his right arm with her hands. CCTV footage from the petrol kiosk captured this incident. 9. The accused’s hits caused Dayalan bodily pain. The accused knew that by hitting Dayalan, she was likely to cause hurt to Dayalan. In the premises, the accused voluntarily caused hurt to Dayalan, and has thereby committed an offence under section 323 of the Penal Code (Cap. 224, Rev. Ed. 2008).

Facts relating to the 3rd Charge (MAC-902018-2019)

10. When Dayalan entered the convenience store at the petrol kiosk, the accused continued to follow him. The accused then intentionally pulled Dayalan’s shirt repeatedly while inside the store, causing Dayalan to move towards her. The repeated pulling lasted around 30 seconds. CCTV footage in the convenience store captured this incident. 11. Dayalan did not consent to this pulling. Further, the accused knew that pulling Dayalan’s shirt repeatedly without his consent was likely to cause Dayalan annoyance. In the premises, the accused used criminal force on Dayalan otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation, and the accused has committed an offence under section 352 of the Penal Code (Cap. 224, Rev. Ed. 2008).

Additional information

12. A medical report dated 12 March 2018 from Singapore General Hospital stated that Dayalan suffered from mild erythema over the right trapezius and focal mild tenderness of the right upper arm from the incident. 13. Another medical report dated 20 March 2018 from Raffles Medical stated that Dayalan was noted to have mild pain in the right supraspinatus muscle bulk (i.e. the right upper back) on movement. Sentencing Approach and Submissions Prosecution’s submissions for the s 323 charge

As regards the sentence sought, DPP Edwin Soh (“DPP Soh”) highlighted several aggravating factors and also the applicable sentencing considerations set out by the High Court in Wong Hoi Len v PP [2009] 1 SLR(R) 115 (“Wong Hoi Len”)². The DPP submitted as follows: Hurt was caused to a public transport worker, and a deterrent custodial sentence should be imposed to protect such workers (citing Wong Hoi Len at [11]). DPP Soh emphasised that “…public transport workers are more vulnerable to criminal violence as they’re constantly exposed to the frontline service and defend for themselves against unruly passengers. So, criminal acts targeting public transport worker should be nailed in the bud to deterrent sentencing of offenders.”³ Where such victims are involved, the starting benchmark for a simple assault should be a custodial sentence of around four weeks. The offences committed by the accused against the victim were sustained, with multiple hits by the accused on the victim’s back and right arm. The accused then followed the victim into a convenience store, where she continued to pull his shirt for 30 seconds. Further, the accused’s state of intoxication was an aggravating consideration (citing Wong Hoi Len at [44]).

The Prosecution also tendered a table of sentencing precedents for s 323 offences involving victims who were public transport workers. These were all cases decided after Wong Hoi Len. The precedent cases showed that imprisonment terms of 3 to 6 weeks had been meted out in cases involving simple assaults that resulted in minor to no injuries to the victims. An outline of the main features of these cases is set out below: PP v Jan Ber Mangilin Terrones [2018] SGMC 76: The victim, a 54-year-old Grab car driver, was driving the intoxicated offender on 30 April 2018 at 8.44pm, when the latter rashly grabbed the victim’s shoulder, while the latter was driving. The offender subsequently demanded that the victim stop the car, and he punched the victim on his head multiple times. The victim then stopped the car and called the police. For this case, the victim suffered no injuries but felt slight pain at his left temple area. The offender, who was a first offender, pleaded guilty at...