Tan Peng Mong v PP

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 31 October 2013
• Date: 31 October 2013
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 21 of 2013
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Tan Peng Mong

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[2013] SGHC 229

Choo Han Teck J

Magistrate's Appeal No 21 of 2013

High Court

Criminal Law—Offences—Hurt—Criminal force and assault—Sentencing—Taxi driver attacking passenger—Whether there was starting benchmark of four weeks' imprisonment for simple assaults committed by public transport workers against their passengers

The accused was a taxi driver. The victim and his wife were passengers of the accused. After a disagreement concerning the temperature of the air-conditioning in the taxi became increasingly heated, the passengers alighted when it appeared that the accused intended to take them somewhere other than their destination. The accused followed and grabbed the victim's throat. The victim pushed the accused away, causing the accused to fall and fracture his left wrist. The accused returned and used an umbrella to hit the victim over his left ear.

The accused was convicted in the District Court on two charges. The first was voluntarily causing hurt and the second was using criminal force, under ss 323 and 352 respectively of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed). He was sentenced to ten days' imprisonment on the first charge and a fine of $1,000 on the second. The accused appealed against conviction and sentence. The Prosecution appealed against sentence. The Prosecution argued that two previous decisions of the High Court, read together, lay down a starting benchmark of four weeks' imprisonment for simple assaults committed by public transport workers against their passengers.

Held, dismissing the appeals of the accused and the Prosecution:

(1) The accused's appeal against conviction was dismissed because the trial judge's findings of fact were not against the weight of the evidence. What exactly happened in the altercation between the accused and the victim was known only to the accused, the victim and his wife. Hence the case largely depended on an assessment of the credibility of these three persons, which assessment the trial judge was better-placed than the appellate court to make: at [3] .

(2) On the authority of the two previous decisions of the High Court cited by the Prosecution, two propositions were accepted as correct. First, there was a starting benchmark of four weeks' imprisonment for simple assaults committed against public transport workers. Second, because public transport workers were in a special position of trust vis-à-vis their passengers, offences committed by these workers against their passengers deserved particular denunciation: at [4] .

(3) However, it did not follow from these two propositions that offences committed by public transport workers against their passengers should be punished as severely as offences committed by passengers against the workers. There were at least three reasons for this. First, offences against public transport workers compromised their right to work in a safe and secure environment, whereas offences committed by these workers against their passengers did not involve undermining such a right. Second, offences against public transport workers were...