Public Prosecutor v Jeremiah Lim Kok Kee
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Brenda Tan |
| Judgment Date | 29 April 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] SGDC 81 |
| Court | District Court (Singapore) |
| Docket Number | DAC-935232-2018 & MAC-910446-2018, (MA-9600-2020-01) |
| Published date | 08 May 2021 |
| Year | 2021 |
| Hearing Date | 06 February 2020,13 July 2020,23 March 2020,05 February 2020,04 February 2020 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Grace Teo & Chua Ying-Hong (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
| Defendant Counsel | The accused in person. |
| Subject Matter | Criminal Law and Sentencing,Offences,Voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant,Penal Code,Obstructing an officer of the Housing and Development Board,Housing and Development Board Act |
| Citation | [2021] SGDC 81 |
The accused, Jeremiah Lim Kok Kee, a male Singaporean aged 61, who was unrepresented, claimed trial to two charges. The first charge was under s 332 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“PC”) for voluntarily causing hurt to a police officer who was discharging his duty as a public servant by punching his left arm multiple times (“Penal Code charge”). The second charge was under s 79 of the Housing and Development Act (Cap 129, 2004 Rev Ed) for obstructing a Housing and Development Board (“HDB”) officer from taking possession of the HDB flat where the accused was residing (“HDB charge”). The Prosecution proceeded with both charges in the same trial pursuant to s 134 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“CPC”) as they arose from the same incident and formed part of the same transaction. I convicted the accused of both charges at the end of the trial and I sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment for the Penal Code charge and fined him $4000 in default two weeks’ imprisonment for the HDB charge.
The accused being dissatisfied with his conviction and sentence has appealed against my decision. He is presently on bail pending his appeal and I have granted a stay on the payment of the fine.
I now set out the reasons for my decision.
The charges The Penal Code charge and the HDB charge that the accused claimed trial to read as follows:
1st CHARGE (Amended)
You, are charged that you, on the 24th day of October 2018, at or about 10.39am, at Blk 107B Edgefield Plains #XXX, Singapore, did voluntarily cause hurt to a public servant, namely one Police Sergeant Chan Jun Jie, to wit, by punching the said Police Sergeant Chan Jun Jie’s left arm multiple times, in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 332 of the Penal Code (Chapter 224, 2008 Rev. Ed).
2nd CHARGE (Amended)
You, are charged that you, on the 24th day of October 2018, sometime between 9.30am and 11.00am, at Blk 107B Edgefield Plains #XXX, Singapore (“the Flat”), did obstruct one Christopher Lim, an officer of the Housing and Development Board (“the Board”), in the performance of the taking possession of the Flat, which the Board is empowered to do under section 59(1) of the Housing and Development Act (Cap 129, 2004 Rev Ed), to wit, by refusing to open the gate to the Flat despite being served a notice to take possession and being requested by the said Christopher Lim to open the gate and vacate the Flat; and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 79 of the said Act.
The accused purchased the HDB flat at Blk 107B Edgefield Plains #XXX, Singapore (“the flat”) in 2001. He took out a HDB mortgage loan of $128,300 for the purchase. He fell into arrears in 2007. Over the years, HDB engaged the accused on numerous occasions by way of letters, telephone calls, house visits and meetings at its branch office to try to resolve the issue but the payments remained outstanding. On 13 March 2013, HDB informed the accused in writing that it intended to compulsorily acquire the flat. Eventually HDB scheduled to evict the accused from the flat on 24 October 2018 at 10am.
The incidents in both charges took place during the scheduled eviction in the morning of 24 October 2018 at the flat. In respect of the HDB charge, the accused did not dispute that PW6 Christopher Lim was a HDB officer and that PW6 Christopher Lim had requested the accused to open the gate and to vacate the flat. The accused admitted that he had refused to open the gate and vacate the flat between 9.30am and 11am because he contended that the eviction was illegal. In respect of the Penal Code charge, the accused did not dispute that PW4 Special Constable (“SC”) Sergeant Chan Jun Jie was a public servant who was discharging his duty as a police officer at the material time. The accused admitted that he had punched PW4 SC Sergeant Chan Jun Jie (the victim)’s hand several times but claimed that he was acting in self-defence.
The elements of the charges The HDB charge S 59(1) and s 79 of the Housing and Development Act stipulated as follows:
The Prosecution was required to prove the following elements of the HDB charge against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt:
The Prosecution was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had voluntarily caused hurt to PW4 SC Sergeant Chan Jun Jie (the victim) by punching his left arm multiple times when PW4 SC Sergeant Chan Jun Jie (the victim) was discharging his duty as a public servant.
The HDB charge HDB was empowered to take possession of the flat pursuant to s 59 of the Housing and Development ActS 59(1) of the Housing and Development Act provided that where any flat had been vested in HDB, HDB may proceed to take possession of the flat after it had served a notice to take possession on the owner and 30 days had expired after the service of the notice.
On the evidence adduced before me, I was satisfied that HDB was empowered to take possession of the flat because the flat had been vested in HDB and HDB had served the requisite notice to take possession of the flat on the accused and that 30 days had expired after the service of such a notice. I set out below the material evidence that supported my findings.
Both PW6 Christopher Lim, the General Manager of HDB Punggol Branch and PW7 Celia Lee, the HDB case manager in charge of the accused’s flat, testified that the accused was owing mortgage arrears on the flat for many years. Exhibit P15, a letter dated 18 December 2015 which HDB wrote to the accused in response to his representations made through his Members of Parliament, set out the purchase and mortgage history of the flat. Exhibit P15 narrated succinctly that the accused had bought the flat in August 2001 and obtained a HDB loan of $128,300 for the purchase. As early as May 2002, the accused had applied to HDB to be allowed to pay reduced instalments. In March 2003, he had also applied to defer the instalment payments. There were other similar applications. The accused fell into arrears since 2007. From 2012, there had been no payments towards the loan instalments. As at January 2012, the accused’s outstanding loan was $147,718.51.
Both PW6 Christopher Lim and PW7 Celia Lee told the court that on 13 March 2013, HDB served a notice on the accused stating HDB’s intention to compulsorily acquire the flat under s 56(1)(k) of the Housing and Development Act (“Notice of Intention for Compulsory Acquisition”). The Notice of Intention for Compulsory Acquisition (exhibit P8) was pasted on the main door of the flat on 13 March 2013. The accused initially claimed that he did not receive the Notice of Intention for Compulsory Acquisition (exhibit P8)1 but he subsequently told the court that he “think” he received it 2.
HDB notified the accused in the Notice of Intention for Compulsory Acquisition (exhibit P8) that it intended to compulsorily acquire the flat on the ground that the accused owed arrears of monthly instalments and that HDB would pay the accused compensation of $418,500 for the flat, subject to the discharge of his mortgage loan (with interest) and deduction of all monies owing to HDB, the Town Council or other authorities, plus Goods and Services Tax on such monies payable and all disbursement incurred by HDB. It was also clearly stated under “Note” on the second page of the Notice of Intention for Compulsory Acquisition (exhibit P8) at note number 5 that in the event of compulsory acquisition, the flat would be repossessed by HDB and the accused would be required to vacate the flat.
The Notice of Intention for Compulsory Acquisition (exhibit P8) also drew the accused’s attention to ss 56(4), (5) and (6) of the Housing and Development Act. S 56(4) required any flat owner, who objected to a proposed acquisition by HDB, to submit the grounds of his objection to the acquisition and compensation offered by HDB in writing within 28 days after the service of a notice of intention to acquire the premises. S 56(5) required HDB to consider the objection and serve the owner a written notice of its decision. S 56(6) stipulated that if any flat owner was aggrieved by the decision of HDB, the flat owner had the right of appeal to the Minister within 28 days after the date of service of such decision on the owner.
For easy reference, the relevant provisions under s 56 of the Housing and Development Act are re-produced below:
To continue reading
Request your trial