Public Prosecutor v Shane Matthew Ross

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Soh Tze Bian
• Judgment Date: 20 January 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] SGMC 4
• Court: Magistrates' Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: MCN-900340-2020
• Year: 2022
• Published date: 26 January 2022
• Hearing Date: 20 January 2022,28 October 2021,29 October 2021
• Plaintiff Counsel: Andre Chong & Koh Yi Wen (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran (Prestige Legal LLP)
• Subject Matter: Criminal law and sentencing,Voluntary causing hurt,Public transport worker,Discrepancies & contradictions in testimony,Right of private defence,Grave and sudden provocation,Whether custody threshold crossed,Whether aggravating factors justify an uplift from the benchmark sentence
• Citation: [2022] SGMC 4

District Judge Soh Tze Bian: CHARGE

The accused person (“AP”) claimed trial to the following charge:

“…you, on 14 February 2019, at or about 5.07p.m., at Thomson Plaza Taxi Stand located at 301 Upper Thomson Road, Singapore 574408, did voluntarily cause hurt to one Gui Eng Chew, to wit, by pushing his upper body several times and kicking his thigh once, causing him to suffer from tenderness over the chest wall, left shoulder and left forearm, with intention of causing hurt to him and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 323 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed).”

Section 323 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) states that: “Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine which may extend to $5,000, or with both.

PROSECUTION’S CASE

To prove its case against the AP, the prosecution called 5 witnesses and tendered a list of exhibits as follows: LIST OF WITNESSES

S/No.	Witness	Role	Marking
1.	Ho Ching Chan	Security guard at Thomson Plaza	PW1
2.	Sardon Kamat	Security guard at Thomson Plaza	PW2
3.	IO Amanda Lim	Investigation officer who took over from PW5	PW3
4.	Gui Eng Chew	Taxi-driver/Victim	PW4
5.	ASP Woo Hong Hao	Investigation officer	PW5
6.	Dr Ng Suat Tong	Doctor who examined PW4 on 26 Feb 2019 at Tai Seng Clinic	PW6
7.	Wong Kee Yung Joseph	Security Supervisor at Thomson Plaza	PW7
8.	Dr Julia Sng Huina	Doctor who examined PW4 on 15 Feb 2019 at Tan Tock Seng Hospital Emergency Department	PW8

LIST OF EXHIBITS

S/No	Exhibit	Marking
1.	Information Report bearing reference no. E/20190214/0129, dated 14 February 2019, 5.11 p.m.	P1
2.	CCTV footage of incident (MCN-900340-2020) recorded on 14 February 2019, 5.06 p.m.	P2
3.	Medical Report for Gui Eng Chew issued by Dr Audrey Tham Yumin of Tan Tock Seng Hospital Emergency Department on 31 December 2019, based on Dr Julia Sng Huina’s clinical notes	P3
4.	Tax Invoice from Tan Tock Seng Hospital dated 17 Feb 2019	P3A
5.	Medical Certificate for Gui Eng Chew issued by Dr Julia Sng Huina dated 15 Feb 2019	P4
6.	Medical Certificate for Gui Eng Chew issued by Dr Ng Suat Tong on 26 February 2019	P5
7.	Tax Invoice from Tai Seng Clinic dated 26 Feb 2019	P5A
8.	Statement recorded from the accused under Section 22 of the CPC by Insp Woo Hong Hao on 13 March 2019, at 5.03 p.m.	P6
9.	Clinical notes of Dr Ng Suat Tong	P7
10.	Security Incident Report dated 14 February 2019	P8

CLOSE OF THE PROSECUTION’S CASE

At the close of the prosecution’s case, I was satisfied that there was some evidence not inherently incredible which satisfied each and every element of the 3 charges preferred against the AP. Accordingly, I administered the standard allocution to the AP who elected to give evidence in his own defence.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

At the end of the trial, I directed both parties to file their respective written submissions and replies on the following issues: “1 Based on the evidence adduced at the trial in respect of the charge preferred against the AP: (a) What are the undisputed and disputed facts in the present case? (Issue 1(a)) (b) Whether the victim, PW4, is a credible and truthful witness, and why? (Issue 1(b)) (c) Whether the AP is a credible and truthful witness, and why? (Issue 1(c)) (d) What is the AP’s defence to the charge, and has the AP raised a reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case, and why? (Issue 1(d)) (e) Whether the prosecution has established its case against the AP beyond a reasonable doubt, and why? (Issue 1(e)) 2 In the event that the AP is convicted of the charge preferred against based on the evidence adduced at the trial : (a) What are the sentencing considerations as well as the aggravating and mitigating factors to be taken into account by the court in sentencing the AP for the offence? (Issue 2(a)) (b) What is the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the AP, and why? (Issue 2(b))”

Issue 1(a) : What are the undisputed and disputed facts in the present case?

Based on the evidence presented at the trial and the submissions and replies of both parties, the undisputed facts¹ are as follows: The incident occurred on Thursday, February 14, 2019 at the Thomson Plaza taxi stand between the AP and PW4. The dispute between the AP and PW4 began inside the taxi. PW4 wanted the AP to alight from the taxi. All of the prosecution exhibits, including the CCTV footage, the victim’s (PW4) medical reports, and the AP’s statement, were admitted by consent. The sequence of events are undisputed and have also been captured on CCTV footage. On 14 February 2019 at about 5.07 p.m., after a disagreement between PW4 and the AP, PW4 had driven his taxi back to Thomson Plaza taxi stand to drop off the AP and his son. When PW4 pointed his finger at the AP and asked him to alight from his taxi, the AP responded by pushing PW4’s hand away before exiting the vehicle. The AP had admitted to pushing PW4 four times and kicking him twice². Thereafter, the AP tried to leave the scene by boarding another taxi with his son, but PW4 prevented the other taxi from leaving. The AP and his son then left the scene on foot before the police arrived.³ During PW4’s initial medical examination conducted by PW8 on 15 February 2019 at the Emergency Department of Tan Tock Seng Hospital, PW4 was found to be suffering from tenderness over his chest wall, left shoulder, and left forearm.⁴ PW8 issued PW4 a one-day medical certificate.⁵ During PW4’s subsequent medical examination conducted by PW6 on 26 February 2019 at Tai Seng Clinic, PW4 was found to have a 4 cm-long healing abrasion on his lateral right calf.⁶ PW6 also issued PW4 with a one-day medical certificate.⁷

The disputed facts are as follows: Whether PW4 was first to exhibit aggressive behaviour as seen on video? Whether the AP was obstructed by PW4, as he attempted to exit the taxi and throughout the situation? Whether obstruction by PW4 continued on throughout the incident, even as the AP was leaving to engage another taxi? When the AP pushed PW4 two more times in the chest causing PW4 to step back, and as PW4 then walked to the boot of the taxi and the AP pushed him in the chest another time causing PW4 to step back again, what was the number of steps taken by PW4? While the AP was reaching into the boot to remove his belongings and PW4 made contact with⁸ the AP’s upper arm, what is the nature of the contact⁹ made between PW4 and the AP? Who ripped the plastic shopping bags containing the AP’s belongings? ¹⁰ Whether the AP made any contact with PW4 on his right leg (calf) and cause injury to PW4? Whether the AP departed from Thomson Plaza with his child (who has special needs) at the earliest possible opportunity for the sake of the child and to deescalate the situation? Whether the events that transpired inside the taxi led to the dispute between the AP and PW4? What is the purpose/intention/degree of the force used by the AP on PW4?

Issue 1(b) : Whether the victim, PW4, is a credible and truthful witness, and why?

I agreed with the prosecution submissions¹¹ and rejected the defence submissions¹² and I found that PW4 is a credible and truthful witness for the following reasons: It is settled law that “Discrepancies and contradictions there inevitably would be, but if these be not of such nature as to impair the strength of the prosecution case or to detract from the value of the witnesses’ testimony, then they ought to be disregarded.”¹³ In the present case, I found that the discrepancies and contradictions in PW4’s testimony (as submitted by the defence) are not of such nature as to impair the strength of the prosecution case in the light of the CCTV evidence, the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses, including the medical evidence, and the AP’s admissions adduced at the trial. In my view, the following defence submissions and attempts to discredit PW4 must fail because they are rather inconsequential and no substantial arguments turned on them so as to assist the defence case: PW4 was not afraid during the incident and had pointed his finger at the AP¹⁴ despite testifying that he had “never pointed finger in his life”. PW4, in his aggressive and argumentative state (as perceived by the AP), could not have possibly said "please" to the AP in a "kind" manner when he testified that he “opened the door for him (the AP) to step out of the door..”¹⁵ and told the AP that he "was rushing home to feed his (my) children, so please take the taxi behind"¹⁶. PW4 was trying to give the impression to the Court that he was calm throughout the whole situation. PW4 had wrongly alleged that the AP kept punching him with both hands, closed fist, as the CCTV timestamps 17:07:28 and 17:07:38 show that the AP was merely pushing PW4 and it was undisputed that the AP did not punch PW4. PW4 was mistaken when he told PW6 that he was punched a few times on his hands and both sides of his chest and PW4 would have sustained more severe injuries than the medical evaluation given by PW8. I agreed with the prosecution¹⁷ that the sheer force behind the AP’s kicks is apparent in the CCTV footage,¹⁸ and the defence has mischaracterised PW4’s testimony about how he felt after the AP’s two kicks to support the defence case that PW4 is not a credible witness.¹⁹ When asked to clarify what he meant by “don’t feel like nothing”, PW4 had explained that he felt nervous and frightened after being kicked by the AP, and that his chest was also more painful than his...