Public Prosecutor v Lim See Yong

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Shawn Ho
• Judgment Date: 28 June 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] SGDC 135
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC 927487 of 2015
• Year: 2017
• Published date: 17 November 2017
• Hearing Date: 20 June 2017,28 October 2016,17 April 2017,27 October 2016,12 April 2017,13 April 2017
• Plaintiff Counsel: Deputy Public Prosecutors Low Chun Yee (27-28 Oct 2016) and Kelly Ho Yan-Qing (12 Apr 2017 onwards)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Revi Shanker s/o K. Annamalai (Arshanker Law Chambers)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Offences,Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt by Dangerous Weapon,Defences,Private Defence,Grave and Sudden Provocation
• Citation: [2017] SGDC 135

District Judge Shawn Ho: INTRODUCTION

Newton Food Centre is a food estuary for locals and tourists. Its rustic allure was marred by what took place on 17 July 2015 – the Accused used a chopper to slash the Victim, causing permanent injuries to the Victim’s left hand. They were both hawkers.

The Accused claimed trial to voluntarily causing grievous hurt¹ by using a dangerous weapon (viz. a chopper, which used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death) under s 326 of the Penal Code.²

Undisputed Facts. The undisputed facts are as follows: 169 days of medical leave were given to the Victim.³ Permanent injuries⁴ were suffered by the Victim – the loss of sensation over both the dorsal and volar aspects of the ulnar one-and-a-half digits, and loss of movements of the intrinsic muscles in his left hand.⁵⁶ The Victim sustained a 10cm longitudinal laceration on his left forearm.⁷ The Accused’s neck had a mild erythema measuring 2 cm x 1 cm.⁸

Analytical Framework. My judgment is based on the following analytical framework:⁹

In the final analysis, the Accused deliberately slashed the Victim with a chopper, with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause grievous hurt to the Victim.¹⁰¹¹ The Accused had swung the chopper – which was raised above his head – in a downward arc from his right to left, and slashed the Victim’s left arm.

The Prosecution navigated the shoals of private defence, and grave and sudden provocation.

All things considered, the Prosecution proved its case against the Accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I convicted the Accused on the charge under s 326 of the Penal Code, and sentenced him to 2 years’ imprisonment.

No appeal has been lodged. These are the reasons for my decision.

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK Issue 1: Did the Accused Deliberately Slash the Victim with a Chopper?

Essentially, there are 2 disputed areas: Whether the Accused had used a chopper or a knife? Whether the Accused had deliberately slashed the Victim or was the Victim accidentally cut during the struggle?

Chopper v Knife

The Accused claimed that the Victim was injured by a knife with a black-coloured handle¹².¹³

This gave me pause. The Accused’s claim was contrary to the evidence of 3 witnesses: an independent eye-witness, a hawker from another stall, and the Victim.¹⁴ All 3 witnesses testified that it was a chopper with a silver monochrome.

The Victim’s testimony that the Accused had wielded a silver-coloured chopper¹⁵, ¹⁶ was corroborated by Mr Lee Fook Heng¹⁷.¹⁸ Mr Lee tried to separate the pair during their struggle. Mr Lee also snatched the chopper from the Accused before throwing it onto the grass patch.¹⁹

Independent Eye-Witness. Importantly, the Victim’s testimony on the chopper was fortified by Mr Lye Kuang Yinn’s evidence.²⁰ Mr Lye is an independent eye-witness – he was a passer-by who does not know the Accused or the Victim.²¹²² Mr Lye testified that he saw two men struggling, with one of them holding a chopper with a silver-coloured stainless steel handle.²³ Mr Lye had a clear view of both men.²⁴²⁵ I accepted Mr Lye’s testimony.

In the premises, based on the evidence before me, the Accused had used a chopper.²⁶

Mr Peh Yew Kheng Robin²⁷ testified that the chopper was sharp enough to cut crabs and stingrays,²⁸ and the blade was sharpened every 2 to 3 days.²⁹ There were no eye-witnesses³⁰ as to how the Accused had injured the Victim, Mr Low Chze Haw.³¹

Deliberate Slash v Accidental Cut

Having sifted the evidence, there was a ring of truth and cadence to the Victim’s testimony.³²

Victim is a Truthful Witness. I had the benefit of observing the Victim’s testimony first-hand. He gave evidence in a forthright and matter-of-fact manner. I found his testimony to be consistent, cogent, and credible.

The Victim’s testimony withstood the crucible of cross-examination. Ultimately, the integrity of his testimony was unshaken. I accepted the Victim’s evidence.

His account was sufficiently detailed and textured. On 17 July 2015, his wife and toddler’s upcoming birthdays had infused the Victim with a fairly good mood.³³³⁴

That evening, the Victim endeavoured to reach the book containing the customers’ orders but he was blocked by the Accused.³⁵ Both of them were commission-based, and their salary depended on their customers’ patronage.³⁶³⁷ There was a ring of truth to the Victim’s account, as the Accused told the police officer³⁸ at the scene about a dispute over blocking each other’s way.³⁹ In addition, in the Accused’s written statement to the police, he mentioned about blocking the Victim.⁴⁰

The Victim said ‘excuse me’ in English to the Accused,⁴¹ but he was ignored.⁴² Next, the Victim asked him in Mandarin to please move aside. Yet, after glancing at the Victim, the Accused persisted in giving him the cold shoulder.⁴³ It was undisputed that the Victim then said softly in Hokkien: ‘Ka Ni Na, I need to take something’.⁴⁴⁴⁵ As the Accused continued to snub the Victim’s request to move aside and let him access the book, the Victim repeated the Hokkien phrase.⁴⁶⁴⁷ The Victim – who had failed his ‘O Levels’⁴⁸ – testified that the Hokkien phrase was commonly used by him and other people working at the hawker centre.⁴⁹⁵⁰

On the Accused’s part, as seen from the CCTV footage,⁵¹ he cocked his head twice at the Victim.⁵² The Accused agreed that by cocking his head, he was being confrontational.⁵³

The Victim pushed the Accused, with the Accused landing in a seated position on a nearby bench.⁵⁴ This was seen from the CCTV footage.⁵⁵ In his police statement, the Accused had stated that he ‘fell to the ground’.⁵⁶ During cross-examination, the Accused agreed that he had been exaggerating.⁵⁷

The Accused rushed inside the stall.⁵⁸ The Victim walked past the stall and looked at what the Accused was up to.⁵⁹ The Accused was inside the stall, while the Victim was standing outside.⁶⁰ When the Accused turned around and was face-to-face with the Victim,⁶¹ the Accused was holding a chopper.⁶²

Wielding the chopper in his right hand at the stall’s entrance,⁶³ the Accused told the Victim in Hokkien: ‘You think I am easy to be bullied’.⁶⁴⁶⁵ The Accused also said in Hokkien: ‘You don’t see my existence, I will let you go today’,⁶⁶ which the Victim understood to mean that the Accused wanted to slash or kill him.⁶⁷⁶⁸ After saying this, the Accused swung the chopper⁶⁹ – which had been raised above his head⁷⁰ – in a downward arc from his right to left, and slashed the Victim’s left arm.⁷¹⁷²

After being slashed, the Victim used his left hand to hold onto the Accused’s right hand which was holding the raised chopper.⁷³ The Victim’s right hand was holding onto the Accused’s neck.⁷⁴ They scuffled and ended up in front of the ATM machines. The Accused looked very aggressive.⁷⁵

I pause here to note that Mr Lye Kuang Yinn⁷⁶ – the independent eye-witness – also saw the Accused wielding the raised chopper above his head.⁷⁷

As the Accused refused to release the chopper and grabbed onto the Victim,⁷⁸ the Victim elbowed him on the neck area onto the ground.⁷⁹⁸⁰ The Victim urged the people around him to get the chopper from the Accused.⁸¹ Mr Lee Fook Heng⁸² took away the chopper, and threw it onto a nearby grass patch;⁸³⁸⁴ Mr Lee’s testimony was not challenged by the Defence during cross-examination:⁸⁵⁸⁶ rule in Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 analysed in Asnah Bte Ab Rahman v Li Jianlin [2016] SGCA 16 at [115].⁸⁷⁸⁸

The Victim said that he did not know at that point in time that he was injured until he saw his blood.⁸⁹ His colleagues helped him to bandage his wound, before he was conveyed by ambulance to hospital. I turn next to the Accused’s testimony.

Accused is Not a Truthful Witness. The Accused claimed that after he entered the stall to get a knife,⁹⁰ the Victim arm-locked the Accused’s neck from behind with his right hand.⁹¹ The Accused was allegedly placed in a neck-lock from the stall entrance all the way to the ATM machines.⁹²⁹³ During the struggle, the Victim was accidentally cut.⁹⁴⁹⁵

To be sure, the Accused’s neck had a mild erythema measuring 2 cm x 1 cm, which is akin to a very light bruise. ⁹⁶⁹⁷ Dr Yak Si Mian⁹⁸ said that the erythema could be caused by a hit from a blunt object or being strangled.⁹⁹¹⁰⁰ Some pressure was applied, for example, from a finger or a hard object without a sharp edge, although Dr Yak was unable to comment on the duration of the pressure.¹⁰¹

The Defence claimed that the Accused’s mild erythema was caused by the Victim’s arm-lock.

I did not agree. Having parsed the evidence, the alleged arm-lock is not borne out for the following three reasons.

First, Dr Yak Si Mian testified that it is not possible for the alleged arm-lock to have caused the mild erythema:

‘Actually I will say it’s not possible… it’s about the contact area. When you do this, when you do the arm-lock, the contact area is larger, so if a significant pressure is applied, the redness should be across a bigger area’¹⁰²

Dr Yak Si Mian testified that it was more likely that the mild erythema was caused by a pincer-like grip of one thumb and four fingers, with the pressure likely coming from the thumb.¹⁰³¹⁰⁴ Dr Yak’s medical opinion corroborates the Victim’s evidence where he testified that after being slashed, his right hand held onto the Accused’s neck.

Second, when the Accused gave his version of events to the police officer¹⁰⁵ at the scene the Accused did not mention an arm-lock.¹⁰⁶¹⁰⁷

Third, none of the eye-witnesses mentioned an arm-lock.

Mr Teo Chin Leong¹⁰⁸ had stated that ‘I can recall vaguely … (that the Victim) was behind (the Accused’s back) … but this I’m not sure, it’s just a vague memory’.¹⁰⁹ Mr Teo said that ‘it seems to me that (the Accused) was caught by---caught hold of by (the Victim)’ but he is not sure of the details as he was looking around to see if others would intervene.¹¹⁰ Mr Teo also...