Public Prosecutor v Lee Seck Hing

CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
JudgeYong Pung How CJ
Judgment Date07 July 1992
Neutral Citation[1992] SGHC 185
Citation[1992] SGHC 185
Defendant CounselMP Rai (Robert WH Wang & Woo)
Plaintiff CounselIsmail Hamid (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
Published date19 September 2003
Docket NumberMagistrate's Appeal No 136/92/01
Date07 July 1992
Subject MatterWhether sentence of one day's imprisonment and $4,000 fine manifestly inadequate,Benchmark sentences,ss 323, 325 & 506 Penal Code (Cap 224),Respondent convicted of voluntarily causing grievous hurt,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing

The respondent, Lee Seck Hing, was charged with voluntarily causing hurt by fracturing the victim`s right arm, an offence punishable under s 325 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) (`the Code`). He was also charged with committing criminal intimidation of the victim by threatening him with injury, telling him that he would get people to `look him up` and thereby causing the victim alarm, an offence punishable under s 506 of the Code. He claimed trial, but after the victim`s evidence had been taken, he changed this to a plea of guilty. On the first charge under s 325, he was sentenced to one day`s imprisonment and a fine of $4,000, in default, four months` imprisonment. The second charge of criminal intimidation was taken into consideration. He has served the one-day imprisonment and paid the fine of $4,000. The public prosecutor now appeals against the sentence.

The facts of the case are as follows.
On 26 November 1990 at about 10.30am, the victim, Thng Yong Heng (whom I shall refer to as `Thng`) was driving his car along the East Coast Parkway. While trying to overtake a slow-moving vehicle in his lane, he switched onto the outer-most lane and, in the process, cut into the path of the respondent who sounded his horn. According to Thng, he raised his arm in apology and cut back into his original lane to allow the respondent to pass. Instead of doing so, however, the respondent proceeded to follow Thng closely, simultansounding his horn and flashing his headlights at Thng. Thng left the expressway at the Benjamin Sheares flyover and drove in the direction of Beach Road. At the junction of Rochor Road and Beach Road he stopped at a red light. It was then that he saw the respondent stopping behind him and emerging from his car. Thinking that he would apologize to the respondent, Thng, too, alighted from his car. He never got to utter his intended apology, for the respondent began to hit him even before he could speak. In defence, Thng attempted to push and kick the respondent away but to little avail as he was of smaller build. The respondent was eventually restrained by passers-by, by which time he had succeeded in breaking Thng`s right arm.

A passer-by then drove Thng to the Singapore General Hospital.
Unhappily for Thng, the sorry incident was far from over, for the respondent now tailed his car all the way to the hospital, stopping alongside Thng`s car at a traffic light to threaten further reprisals. Such was the terror Thng suffered that upon reaching the admission entrance of the hospital, he went on his knees in apology to his aggressor. The respondent replied with further threats of injury, telling Thng that he would get people to `look (Thng) up`. It is this threat which formed the subject of the charge of criminal intimidation.

Thng was treated at the hospital where it was confirmed that he had suffered a `closed comminuted fracture of the right humerus`.
He was hospitalized for eight days.

As the respondent pleaded guilty to the first charge, he would normally have no right of appeal against the conviction by virtue of s 244 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) (`the CPC`), which provides: `When an accused person has pleaded guilty and been convicted by a district court or magistrate`s court on that plea there shall be no

To continue reading

Request your trial
93 cases
  • Eldon v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • January 15, 2001
    ......As a result, the magistrate thought that a custodial sentence was appropriate. He cited from the judgment in PP v Lee Seck Hing [1992] 2 SLR 745 at p 748 and, drawing an analogy with road-rage violence, applied its reasoning to the circumstances of the instant case. ......
  • Wong Sin Yee v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • May 23, 2001
    ...[2000] 1 SLR (R) 490; [2000] 2 SLR 358 (folld) Ong Hwee Leong v PP [1992] 1 SLR (R) 458; [1992] 1 SLR 794 (folld) PP v Lee Seck Hing [1992] 2 SLR (R) 374; [1992] 2 SLR 745 (folld) PP v AAX [1999] 2 SLR (R) 1104; [1999] 4 SLR 83 (refd) PP v Norzian bin Bintat [1995] 3 SLR (R) 105; [1995] 3 S......
  • Chua Tian Bok Timothy v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • September 16, 2004
    ...serious one of voluntarily causing grievous hurt under s 325 of the Penal Code (Ong Hwee Leong v PP [1992] 1 SLR 794; PP v Lee Seck Hing [1992] 2 SLR 745). I made it clear in Ong Hwee Leong v PP and PP v Lee Seck Hing that there can be no place on our roads for road bullies. In Ong Hwee Leo......
    • Malaysia
    • Magistrates Court (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
    ...of the community are bound to meet one another in their daily lives. [34] In the Singapore case of Public Prosecutor v Lee Seck Hing [1992] 2 SLR 745, the learned Yong Pung How CJ observed that it is all the more important to send a strong deterrent message against violent crimes committed ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2020, December 2020
    • December 1, 2020
    ...multiple instances if the offender or Prosecution appeals against sentence for multiple charges. 65 Public Prosecutor v Lee Seck Hing [1992] 2 SLR(R) 374: Sentence increased from one day to one year. 66 That is, if the percentage change in each instance is arranged in ascending order, the l......
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 1996, December 1996
    • December 1, 1996
    ...v PP, supra, note 14 (rape under section 376(1) Penal Code). 131 Chandresh Patel v PP [1995] 1 CLAS News 323. 132 PP v Lee Seek Hing [1992] 2 SLR 745. 133 E.g. PP v Tan Ah Hua 1987 CLAS News No 5 p 27 (appeal dismissed), involving robbery; PP v Darzuki bin Ombri Magistrate’s Appeal No 312/8......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT