Public Prosecutor v Ng Eng Hua

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: May Lucia Mesenas
• Judgment Date: 08 March 2006
• Neutral Citation: [2006] SGMC 5
• Court: Magistrates' Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 16 March 2006
• Year: 2006
• Plaintiff Counsel: Inspector Sekaran (Police Prosecutor)
• Defendant Counsel: Accused in person
• Citation: [2006] SGMC 5

8 March 2006

Magistrate May Lucia Mesenas:

1 On 2 March 2006, the accused pleaded guilty to one charge of voluntarily causing hurt under section 323 of the Penal Code Cap. 224. The charge is set out below:

Charge – Exhibit “P1”

“You, Ng Eng Hua, male/48 years, NRIC No. S1239818B, are charged that you on 25^th November 2005 at or about 2.20am, along West Coast Walk, did voluntarily cause hurt to one Lim Kian Soon, to wit, by punching his left cheek with your right fist, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 323 of the Penal Code, Cap 224.

Summary of facts

2 The accused admitted to the Statement of Facts (Exhibit “A”) pertaining to the charge, without qualification. He was therefore convicted on the charge accordingly. The salient points are as follows:

(a) On 24^th November 2005, at about 2.20am, both the complainant and accused had parked their respective taxis along West Coast Walk waiting for passengers. The accused’s taxi was parked behind the complainant’s vehicle.

(b) Investigations revealed that as both the complainant and the accused were waiting for passengers, the complainant felt a knock on his taxi. The complainant then alighted from his taxi to check what happened and discovered that his left rear bumper had been lowered by about 1cm and there were scratches seen as well.

(c) The complainant then confronted the accused about the damage and a dispute arose as to how the damages are to be settled. During the course of the dispute, the accused punched the complainant once on his left cheek.

(d) As a result of the punch, the complainant sustained minimal swelling and tenderness over the left cheek region.

Antecedents and Mitigation

3 The accused did not have any similar convictions or antecedents. His previous antecedents (Exhibit “C”) include the following:

a) Theft under section 379 Penal Code (Cap 224) in1984 -- fined $600;

b) Wilful trespass under section 21 Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Cap 184) in 1991 -- fined $200;

c) Two offences of gaming in a common gaming house under section 7 Common Gaming Houses Act (Cap 49) in 1991 -- fined $500 and $1,200 respectively;

d) Possession of radio communication equipment without a licence under section 34(1)(b) Telecommunications Act (Cap 323) in 2001 -- fined $1,000; and

e) Illegal punting under section 5(1) Betting Act (Cap 21) in 2002 -- fined $2,500.

4 In mitigation, the accused, who was unrepresented, pleaded for a light fine.

Prosecution’s submission

5 The prosecution did not submit on sentence and left the matter to the court.

Sentence

6 The punishment prescribed under section 323 Penal Code is a fine up to $1,000 or imprisonment up to one year or both.

7 I was mindful of the fact that there is a pattern or tendency for the courts to impose a custodial sentence where violence has been used arising from incidents on the roads: see PP v Lee Seck Hing [1992] SLR 745 and Ong Hwee Leong v PP [1992] 1 SLR 794. However, it should also be noted that not all offences where violence has been used on the roads have been visited with a custodial sentence. See for example, PP v Chua Tian Bok Timothy [2005] SGMC 4 and PP v Eldon [2001] 1 SLR 710. Clearly, the courts have deviated from the imposition of a custodial sentence where the facts warrant it.

8 Before turning to the factual matrix of this case, I would add that the circumstances of each case are of paramount importance in determining the appropriate sentence: Dinesh Batia Singh s/o Amarjeet Singh v PP [2005] 3 SLR 1. In the same case, Justice V K Rajah articulated the...