Wong Leong Chin v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 09 November 2000
• Date: 09 November 2000
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 133 of 2000
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Wong Leong Chin

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[2000] SGHC 286

Yong Pung How CJ

Magistrate's Appeal No 133 of 2000

High Court

Evidence–Witnesses–Adverse inference–Prosecution did not call witness at criminal trial–Defence did not call witness or indicate that witness required–Whether adverse inference should be drawn against Prosecution for failing to call witness–Section 116 illus (g)Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)–Family Law–Family violence–Orders for protection–Wilful contravention of Personal Protection Order by causing hurt to spouse–Inconsistencies in evidence of spouse–Whether offences proven beyond reasonable doubt–Whether sentence manifestly excessive–Section 65 (8) Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed)

The appellant was convicted on two charges of contravening a personal protection order (“PPO”) by hurting his wife and hence committing an offence punishable under s 65 (8) of the Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed) (“WC”). The district judge sentenced him to four weeks' imprisonment on the first charge and six weeks' imprisonment on the second charge.

The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence on both charges on the grounds that: (a) in the first charge, the district judge accepted the wife's evidence without considering the inconsistencies in her evidence in that firstly, she told the police that she was injured whereas the police did not see the injuries, and secondly, she told the examining doctor, Dr Tan, that she had throat inflammation whereas Dr Tan said that she did not; (b) in the second charge, the district judge accepted the wife's evidence without considering the inconsistencies between her evidence and the doctor who had examined her, Dr Chai, in that the injuries she claimed she suffered were different from the injuries recorded by Dr Chai; and (c) the district judge was wrong for not drawing an adverse inference against the Prosecution for failing to call the wife's brother in respect of the second charge.

Held, dismissing the appeal and confirming the sentence imposed on the first charge and allowing the appeal on the second charge:

(1) For the first charge, the district judge rightfully disregarded the first inconsistency. The fact that the police did not see the wife's injuries did not mean she was not injured. Dr Tan testified that her injuries were of the nature that could only be apparent some time after the assault. The second inconsistency was immaterial in view of the lapse of time since the incident. Dr Tan's evidence was clear that her injuries were unlikely to be self-inflicted: at [21], [23] and [24].

(2) For the second charge, there were material discrepancies between Dr Chai's objective medical evidence and the wife's evidence of her injuries and of the assault on her. In failing to deal with this inconsistency, the district judge also failed to consider Dr Chai's evidence that the injury could have been self-inflicted. Also, the district judge relied on Dr Tan's evidence alone to convict the appellant on both charges. The appellant had succeeded in casting a reasonable doubt in respect of the second charge: at [30], [32] and [35].

(3) The appellant had not shown that the Prosecution had any ulterior motive in not calling the wife's brother as a witness or had wrongly exercised their discretion in deciding whether to call him as a witness. The Defence had also failed to call him as a witness or indicate that it wished to do so: at [42].

(4) Wilful contravention of a PPO under the WC was a serious offence. The court took a very serious view of family violence and might, in appropriate cases, impose a custodial sentence. Public policy also required that vulnerable members of the family such as wife and children should be protected from violence. The wife's injures were serious. In the circumstances, four weeks' imprisonment as sentence on the proven first charge was not manifestly excessive: at [47] to [50].

Lim Young Sien v PP [1994] 1 SLR (R) 920; [1994] 2 SLR 257 (refd)

PP v N [1999] 3 SLR (R) 499; [1999] 4 SLR 619 (refd)

Tan Ah Lay v PP [1994] SGCA 90 (folld)

Yeo Choon Huat v PP [1997] 3 SLR (R) 450; [1998] 1 SLR 217 (folld)

Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 116 illus (g) (consd)

Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed) s 65 (8) (consd)

Liew Chen Mine (Foo, Liew & Philip Lam) for the appellant

Hay Hung Chun (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the respondent.

Yong Pung How CJ

1 The appellant was charged and convicted in the District Court by District Judge Khoo Oon Soo on the following two charges:

DAC 7108/2000 (the 'first charge')

You, Wong Leong Chin, M/33 yrs, are charged that you, on or about 25 August 1998, at or about 2.30am, inside the unit of Blk 316 Tampines Street 33 #06-186, Singapore, did contravene the Personal Protection Order PPO No 694/1998 issued on 12 August 1998, to wit, by causing hurt to one Goh Cheng Sim and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 65 (8) of the Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Ed).

DAC 7109/2000 (the 'second charge')

You, Wong Leong Chin, M/33 yrs, are charged that you, on or about 22 August 1999, at or about 9.30pm, inside the unit of Blk 316 Tampines Street 33 #06-186, Singapore, did contravene the Personal Protection Order PPO No 694/1998 issued on 12 August 1998, to wit, by causing hurt to one Goh Cheng Sim and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 65 (8) of the Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Ed).

2 The district judge convicted the appellant of both offences and sentenced the appellant to four weeks' imprisonment on the first charge and six weeks' imprisonment on the second charge. The two terms of imprisonment were ordered to run consecutively, making a total of ten weeks' imprisonment for the appellant.

3 The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence on both charges. After hearing arguments of both the defence counsel and the DPP at the hearing of the appeal, I dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence in respect of DAC 7108/2000 (the first charge) but allowed the appeal and set aside the sentence in respect of DAC 7109/2000 (the second charge) for the reasons set out below.

The background

4 The appellant was the husband of the complainant, Mdm Goh Cheng Sim (“Mdm Goh”) at the material time of the offences. On 12 August 1998, Mdm Goh had obtained a personal protection order (the “PPO”) against the appellant. The PPO arose from an incident in which the appellant slapped Mdm Goh when he saw a man bringing her home. The PPO, which was consented to by the appellant, prohibited the appellant from using family violence against Mdm Goh. The definition of “family violence” included, inter alia, causing hurt to Mdm Goh by such act which was known or ought to have been known would result in hurt.

Evidence relating to DAC 7108/2000 (the first charge)

5 The testimony of Mdm Goh, who gave evidence for the Prosecution, on the first charge was as follows. On 25 August 1998, when the appellant returned home around midnight, Mdm Goh asked him where he had been. The appellant did not give a satisfactory answer and in fact lost his temper and became violent. He tried to strangle Mdm Goh, who resisted the attack. When she tried to run away, he chased her and continued to hit her. He allegedly used his fist to hit her face and body and also kicked her. She managed to run to the next room and lock the door. From the room, she called the police.

6 Two police officers, Sergeant Alfian Ain and Sergeant Eric Wee, arrived at the flat at...