Public Prosecutor v Lee Seck Hing

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 07 July 1992
• Neutral Citation: [1992] SGHC 185
• Date: 07 July 1992
• Subject Matter: Whether 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
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 136/92/01
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: MP Rai (Robert WH Wang & Woo)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ismail Hamid (Deputy Public Prosecutor)

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...