Public Prosecutor v Ng Chin Guan

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Hamidah Bte Ibrahim
• Judgment Date: 31 March 2009
• Neutral Citation: [2009] SGDC 111
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2009
• Citation: [2009] SGDC 111
• Plaintiff Counsel: Chan Huimin (DPP)
• Defendant Counsel: Subhas Anandan & Sunil Sudheesan (KhattarWong)
• Published date: 20 October 2009

31 March 2009

District Judge Hamidah Ibrahim:

1 The accused person pleaded guilty to the following charge:

DAC 9797/2008 (P1A)

You,
NG CHIN GUAN
Male/27 YEARS OLD (D.O.B:16/11/1981)
NRIC: S8138000G
SINGAPORE Citizen

are charged that you on the 26^th day of February 2008, at or about 6.20 pm, at No. 1 Sakra View, Singapore, did voluntarily cause grievous hurt to one Razali Bin Ibrahim,Male/41 years old, to wit, by using a wooden stick measuring 1.7 meters in length to strike the said Razali Bin Ibrahim twice and causing him to suffer a fracture on his right ulna and a fracture on his 5^th left metacarpal and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 325 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

The Facts

2 The statement of facts (exhibit A) disclosed that on the 26^th of February, 2008 the accused, a crane operator, was operating a mobile crane at the worksite located at No. 1 Sakra View, Singapore while the victim, one Razali Bin Ibrahim was deployed as a safety supervisor at the said site. A witness who was present, namely one Mohamed Nabeel Bin Haji Abdul Hamid Magnus (‘witness’), was also deployed as a safety supervisor at the same site.

3 After completing his work, the accused realised that the tyres of his mobile crane had sunk into the soft ground of the worksite. He spent a long time trying to move the mobile crane but all his efforts failed even when the witness assisted him. At about 6.20 pm, the victim told the accused to leave the mobile crane at the worksite for the night and to retrieve it the next day as the victim had to lock up the premises. The accused refused to comply. A heated argument followed. The accused used vulgarities on the victim who then placed both hands on the accused’s chest. The accused reacted by punching the victim and both fell to the ground. A scuffle ensued between the parties.

4 Some workers at the worksite and the witness came forward to separate the victim and the accused who continued to behave aggressively towards the victim. He ran towards the victim each time he managed to break free from the witness’s grip. At 1 point in time, the accused grabbed a 1.7 metres wooden stick which formed part of a temporary barricade and used it to strike the victim twice. He had run up a table and struck the victim, who was standing in front of the table, once on his right arm and once on his left hand. The witness managed to grab hold of the accused. The victim ran to hide in a container office where he called the police from his hand phone to report that he had been assaulted.

5 The accused went to the container office to search for the victim. He picked up a changkul from the floor and used it to break the door knob of the container office in which the victim was hiding. He let go of the changkul before entering the said office so the witness quickly ran forward to restrain him. In the office the victim apologised to the accused but he continued to swear at the victim. The accused also insisted on a fight. Eventually the accused told the victim he would wait for him outside and he left the office. The police and the ambulance arrived shortly. The police arrested the accused.

6 The victim was sent to the National University Hospital where he was found to have suffered the following injuries, namely fracture to the right ulna (long forearm bone), consistent with direct blow and a fracture to the left 5^th metacarpal (hand bone). The victim has undergone two surgeries as a result of his injuries. With regard to the long term outcome of his injuries, the left metacarpal fracture may result in post traumatic arthritis and the right ulna fracture may lead to diminished grip strength.

7 Upon the admission of the accused to the above statement of facts without any qualification, I found him guilty and convicted him on the charge. The prosecution informed me that on the 24^th of June, 1997 the accused was sent to the juvenile home for 30 months having committed 2 counts of theft under section 380 of the Penal Code. On the 4^th of April, 2003 he was fined $3,000 for remaining outside Singapore without a valid exit permit which was an offence under section 32 (1) of the Enlistment Act.

Mitigation

8 Counsel for the accused submitted to the court that the accused’s previous convictions were committed when he was a juvenile and that the offences were completely different. He urged the court to treat the accused as a first offender. He highlighted the fact that the accused had pleaded guilty which was a clear sign of remorse on the accused’s part. The accused had also admitted beating the victim with a stick in his statement taken immediately after his arrest.

9 With regard to the offence itself, the accused was described as a responsible worker who did not want to leave his crane in somebody’s else premises, being a responsible...