Public Prosecutor v Tristan Koh Boon Hui

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Christopher Tan Pheng Wee
• Judgment Date: 27 May 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] SGDC 112
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC 939942/2018 & Ors
• Year: 2019
• Published date: 01 June 2019
• Hearing Date: 21 May 2019
• Plaintiff Counsel: Foo Shi Hao (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Defendant Counsel: Accused in person
• Citation: [2019] SGDC 112

District Judge Christopher Tan Pheng Wee: Introduction

The Accused is a 25-year-old male. He pleaded guilty to the two charges below and was sentenced as follows:

	Proceeded Charge	Offence	Sentence imposed
1	DAC 939942/2018 Use of criminal force against a public servant, with intent to deter her from discharging her duty	Section 353 Penal Code1	Imprisonment: 4 weeks*
2	MAC 902522/2019 Use of criminal force	Section 352 Penal Code1	Imprisonment: 1 week*
	TOTAL		Imprisonment: 4 weeks

*Both imprisonment terms were ordered to run concurrently.

The Accused also consented to two other charges² against him being taken into consideration (“TiC”) for the purpose of sentencing. Both TiC charges relate to offences under s 6(3) of the Protection from Harassment Act³ (“PHA”).

Facts

On 2 December 2018, at about 9.00pm, the Accused was attending a birthday celebration with his (then) girlfriend and the latter’s aunt (“the aunt”).

The Accused grew intoxicated after drinking with his friends and began shouting and making a lot of noise. At around 10.40pm, the aunt thus asked the Accused’s girlfriend to bring him out of the house. The Accused responded by slapping the aunt’s left cheek, twice. This is the subject of the charge under s 352 of the Penal Code:

MAC 902522/2019

… you on the 2nd day of December 2018 at or about 10.40pm, at Blk 351 Ang Mo Kio Street 32, #XXX …, used criminal force on one Lim Annie, to wit, by slapping her on her left cheek twice, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 352 of the Penal Code ….

The slap did not cause any physical injuries to the aunt. Nevertheless, she called the 999 hotline for police assistance.

At about 11.06pm, Voluntary Special Constabulary Woman Staff Sergeant Lim Choon Hiang (“WSSgt Lim”) and Sergeant Tan Ching Lin (“Sgt Tan”) arrived at the scene. They interviewed the Accused, who was drunk and uncooperative.

In the course of the interview, the Accused grew violent, despite several warnings to him to calm down. At about 11:35pm, the Accused threw a punch at WSSgt Lim. However, she managed to block the blow, with the result that the contact landed on her hands. This is the subject of the charge under s 353 of the Penal Code:

DAC 939942/2018

… you, on the 2nd day of December 2018 at or about 11.35pm, at Blk 351 Ang Mo Kio Street 32, #XX …, used criminal force on one Lim Choon Hiang, a public servant, to wit, throwing one punch with intent to deter the said public servant from discharging her duty as such public servant, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 353 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

WSSgt Lim did not suffer any visible injuries arising from the punch.

The Accused also uttered expletives at both WSSgt Lim and Sgt Tan. These formed the subject of the two TiC charges under s 6(3) of the PHA, of which: one related to the vulgarities hurled at WSSgt Lim; the other related to that hurled at Sgt Tan.

Antecedents

The Accused has no prior criminal records.

Mitigation

In his mitigation plea, the Accused said that he is very sorry for what happened and that he does not wish to lose his job.⁴

Sentence Section 353 of the Penal Code: Use of Criminal Force Against WSSgt Lim

The Accused’s act of throwing a punch at WSSgt Lim gave rise to an offence under s 353 of the Penal Code, which reads: 353. Using criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty

Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 4 years, or with fine, or with both.

For offences involving physical attacks against police officers, the lower courts have been guided by the recent decision in PP v Yeo Ek Boon, Jeffrey [2017] SGHC 306 (“Jeffrey Yeo”). Jeffrey Yeo involved a drunken offender who slapped the cheek of a police officer who had approached him. The offender subsequently pleaded guilty to one charge under s 332 of the Penal Code (voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from his duty) and was sentenced to one week in prison. On appeal by the Prosecution, a three-judge bench of the High Court enhanced the imprisonment term to 10 weeks. In doing so, the High Court explained the rationale for a stiffer sentencing position: 49 Attacks against police officers can have several undesirable consequences at a societal level. First, the incidents of attack, if left unchecked, could undermine public confidence in our police officers as authority figures in society and compromise their effectiveness as a symbol of law and order. Second, with manpower constraints resulting in an already lean police-to-population ratio in Singapore, the continued abuse of police officers will have an adverse impact on the SPF's recruitment efforts. In the long term, this will have repercussions for the operational effectiveness of the police and will affect the country adversely as a whole. Third, challenges to the authority of the police pose a real risk of defensive policing. It would be unfortunate and undesirable if our police officers feel the need too easily and too often to draw their weapons or to use force in reaction to any perceived danger. All these issues are compounded by the increasingly complex and uncertain security environment with which modern-day policing is presented in a densely populated country, where emergency situations could arise at any time with dire consequences for the public. 50 Police officers must therefore be assured of adequate protection and vindication by the law against behaviour that might compromise the effective discharge of their duties. In that light and coupled with the fact that police officers were often the target in the cases prosecuted under s 332 of the Penal Code, it is appropriate to have a sentencing framework which reflects society's opprobrium of such offences. This will aid especially the State Courts in sentencing in such cases and help maintain uniformity in the sentences.

Jeffrey Yeo involved a more serious penal provision than in the present case before me −the charge in Jeffrey Yeo was under s 332 of the Penal Code (which requires that hurt be caused). The present case involves a charge under s 353 of the Penal Code, which only requires use of criminal force.⁵ Nevertheless, the sentencing rationale expounded in Jeffrey Yeo as regards protecting our law enforcement officers is of equal relevance to other offences involving physical violence against the police.

Additionally, the High Court in Jeffrey Yeo⁶ indicated that the sentencing framework which it sought to lay down extends to, inter alia, members of the Special Constabulary (of which WSSgt Lim is a member).

There is a myriad of physical attacks to which our law enforcement officers could potentially be exposed. These include attacks with body-to-body contact (e.g. pushing or punching), those which are calculated to demean (e.g. spitting), or both (e.g. a slap to...