District Judge Luke Tan:
Introduction
On 10 December 2014, one Govindharaj Muthamil Selvan ("the Deceased"), an employee of the accused company, Hong Jun Development Pte Ltd, died as a result of multiple injuries he suffered at a worksite at 1 Selarang Ring Road Singapore 507087 ("Selarang Camp"). Arising from the death of the Deceased, the accused company was charged for an offence under the Workplace Safety and Health Act, Chapter 354A (WSHA). The charge essentially alleged that the accused company had failed to take reasonably practicable measures to ensure the safe construction of a shoring system at the worksite and that this failure had resulted in the death of the Deceased.
For the purposes of the trial, the Prosecution called eleven witnesses to testify, while the Defence called as its witnesses, both the directors of the accused company.
At the end of the trial, I was satisfied that the charge against the accused company was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and I convicted the accused company and sentenced it to a fine of $200,000. The accused company has since filed an appeal against the conviction and sentence. The Prosecution, which had sought a fine of $250,000, has filed an appeal against sentence. I now give my grounds of decision.
The Charge and the Undisputed Facts
The charge against the accused company reads as follows:
“You…are charged that you, on and before 10 December 2014, being an employer at the worksite located at 1 Selarang Ring Road Singapore 507087, which was a workplace within the meaning of the Workplace Safety and Health Act (Chapter 354A), did in contravention of Section 12(1) of the said Act, fail to take, so far as was reasonably practicable, such measures as were necessary to ensure the safety and health of your employees at work, to wit, you failed to ensure the safe construction of a shoring system at the worksite, resulting in the death of your employee, one Govindharaj Muthamil Selvan (WP no: xxx) and you have thereby committed an offence under section 12(1) read with section 20 of the Workplace Safety and Health Act (Chapter 354A), punishable under section 50(b) of the same Act.”
The elements of the charge that have to be proved are as follows: The accused company was the employer of the Deceased and he was working at the worksite at Selarang on the material date; The worksite is a workplace within the meaning of the WSHA; The accused company failed to take reasonably practicable measures to ensure that the construction of the shoring system was safe; and This failure resulted in the death of the Deceased.
Both the Prosecution and the Defence put up an agreed statement of facts (ASOF). The essential facts that were agreed are set out below. The parties and persons involved Deenn Engineering Pte Ltd (Deenn), was the main contractor for the construction of a multi-storey vehicle storage and support facilities at Selarang Camp (“the worksite”) which is a workplace within the meaning of the WSHA. King Wan was engaged by Deenn to supply and install plumbing and sanitary system works at the worksite. The accused company, in turn, was contracted by King Wan to supply and install plumbing and sanitary system works at the premises and the contract period was from 1st August 2014 to 16 October 2014. The accused company had to excavate trenches to lay underground sewer pipes. The accused company employed the Deceased, a construction worker, who was deployed to the worksite since sometime in September 2014. PW2 Kaliyamoorthy Manikandan (Kaliyamoorthy), PW4 Loh Thiam Ming (Loh) and PW3 Subramaniyam Ramachandran (Subramaniyam) were also working as construction workers for the accused company, and they carried out the construction of shoring works at the worksite together with the Deceased. At the material time, Loh was the operator of the excavator for the said works while Subramaniyam was deployed to the inspected premises as a Safety Supervisor. Agasthian Karthikeyan (“Agasthian”) was employed by the accused company as a construction site supervisor. At the material time, Kaliyamoorthy, Loh, Subramaniyam and the Deceased took work instructions from Agasthian. DW1 Koong Kian Seng (Koong) was a director of the accused company and he was appointed by King Wan to oversee the operation works at the inspected premises. Koong would liaise directly with Deenn and plan the installation work. DW2 Eee Kong Yew (Eee) was the other director of the accused company, and he gave direct work instructions to Agasthian. At the material time, Eee had appointed Agasthian to take charge of the works and had tasked him to continue with the laying of underground sewer pipes at the inspected premises. Eee was overseas on the date of the accident. The situation at the worksite leading up to the accident Eee had been supervising the workers for the laying of underground sewer pipes. The said pipes were laid at a gradient, starting off at a depth of 6m. A trench of about 18m in length would be excavated for the laying of three 5m pipes. After the laying of the pipes, concreting works would be carried out to protect the pipes. Workers were required to enter the trench for the laying of the pipes and the concreting works. Upon completion, the trench would be backfilled with excavated soil before proceeding to the next span. Agasthian took over the supervisory role from Eee from 6 December 2014 as Eee was overseas. It is a requirement under Regulation 77(2) of the Workplace Safety and Health (Construction) Regulations 2007 that adequate shoring shall be provided for any excavation in a worksite with depth exceeding 1.5m. The exception to this requirement is when the excavation has been examined and certified by a Professional Engineer (“PE”) to be safe without any shoring. The Incident on 10th December 2014 By 10 December 2014, the accused company’s workers had completed laying about a total of 100m length or more of pipes. On that date, the Deceased was carrying out the construction of shoring works for an excavated trench (“the accident trench”). At about 0900 hrs, Loh operated the excavator to excavate the trench. By 1400 hrs, the excavation work for the trench was completed. The trench was about 18m long, 1.6m wide and 3.3m deep. Agasthian, Subramaniyam, Kaliyamoorthy, the Deceased and Loh then proceeded with the construction of shoring for the accident trench. Agasthian instructed Kaliyamoorthy and the Deceased to enter the trench to standby and receive the shoring materials. Kaliyamoorthy and the Deceased were stationed in the trench to receive a metal plate which was lowered by a hydraulic excavator operated by Loh. Metal plates were used for shoring the sides of the trench. Subramaniyam rigged a 0.025m thick metal plate (which measured about 6m by 1.5m wide and weighed about 1,700 kg) to a 2-legged chain sling which was then hooked to the excavator arm. Agasthian was the lifting supervisor who gave lifting signals to Loh who then hoisted the said metal plate into the trench. At about 1400 hrs, the metal plate fell towards the Deceased after he unrigged the lifting hook from the metal plate. The Deceased was conveyed to the hospital but succumbed to his injuries at about 1510hrs on the same day. The certified cause of death was “multiple injuries”, and he had external injuries to his head, neck, trunk and upper limbs. Internal examination also showed extensive haemorrhage around the upper anterior chest wall.
The following photographs were also admitted by agreement and set out in the ASOF as Annex A, B and C. ![]()
![]()
![]()
Parties also submitted an agreed bundle of documents (Tabs A to W) with the ASOF.
In addition, it was not disputed that: Shoring was required for the trenches that the accused company worked in, on 6th, 9th and 10th December. In this case, the Professional Engineer (PE) for the project, PE Lee, had come up with PE designs V and W (found at Tabs V and W) for the shoring works that were to be constructed for the trenches at the worksite. However, these designs were not used by the accused company for the construction of shoring at the trenches on 6th and 9th December 2014. This could be seen from photographs C1 to C3 taken on 6th December 2014, and photograph C4 taken on 9th December 2014. Specifically, there was no shoring installed in the trench on 6th December 2014, and there was only “half” (i.e. inadequate) shoring installed in the trench on 9th December 2014 which did not confirm with either of the PE designs. Despite this, the accused company’s workers were inside these trenches carrying out works on those dates. These trenches, which the accused company’s workers worked on between 6th and 9th December 2014, as well as the accident trench on 10th December 2014, should have had shoring constructed according to the PE designs V or W. On 06 December 2014, it was detected by Deenn that there was no shoring in the trench dug by the accused company. An email was sent by Deenn to the accused company (attention to Koong) and King Wan at 6.14 p.m. on 06 December 2014. Koong knew about this e-mail on 8th December 2014 (Monday). A fine was issued by Deenn against King Wan for this breach. On 09 December 2014, the half shoring was detected at or around 4.11 p.m.
In light of the agreed and undisputed facts above, it was clear that the first two elements of the charge were made out, namely that: The accused company was the employer of the Deceased, who was working at the worksite at Selarang on the material date; and The worksite was a workplace within the meaning of the WHSA.
Thus, the only two elements of the charge that were in issue were: Whether the Accused company had failed to take reasonably practicable measures to ensure that the construction of the shoring system was safe; and Whether this failure caused the death of the Deceased.
The Parties’ Positions
The...
