Yeo Mee Yee Maggie v Roger Yow Hok Mun

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: May Lucia Mesenas
• Judgment Date: 24 September 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] SGDC 375
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 17 May 2012,21 October 2011,03 June 2011,15 October 2011,18 April 2012,06 April 2012,02 April 2012,20 July 2011,01 April 2012,16 October 2011,21 July 2011,02 June 2011,08 May 2012,22 July 2011,20 October 2011,03 April 2012,17 October 2011,01 June 2011
• Docket Number: PSS 587 of 2009
• Plaintiff Counsel: The Appellant-in-person
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Troy Yeo (M/s Troy Yeo & Co.)
• Published date: 01 October 2012

District Judge May Lucia Mesenas:

This is a private prosecution initiated by the complainant, Ms Yeo Mee Yee Maggie against the respondent, Mr Roger Yow Hok Mun. The complainant lodged a Magistrate’s Complaint on 19 April 2008 (Exhibit ‘P11’), alleging amongst other things, that the respondent had uttered vulgarities at her when the complainant, a fitness instructor, at the material time, had reminded the respondent to use a towel when he was using the gym equipment to carry out his exercises. It was further alleged that the respondent had also used his right index finger to point at the complainant while he uttered the vulgarities, where he also demanded that the complainant step outside the gym to settle the matter, thereby intentionally causing alarm to the complainant by the respondent’s actions. A summons was subsequently issued and served on the respondent where he was charged in court on 31 March 2011 for the offence of criminal intimidation under section 506 of the Penal Code Cap 224 (see Exhibit ‘C1’).

An amended charge (Exhibit ‘C1A’) for the offence of intentionally using threatening words with intent to cause alarm to the complainant, which offence is punishable under section 13B(1) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act Cap 184, was tendered on the first day of trial by the complainant’s counsel. The amended charge is re-produced below for ease of reference:

You,

Roger Yow Hok Mun (male)

NRIC No. (Unknown)

are thereby charged that you, on 16 day of April 2008 at or about 8.00pm at Bukit Gombak Sports and Recreation Centre at 800 Bukit Batok West Avenue 5, Singapore, did intentionally used threatening words with intention to cause alarm to Yeo Mei Yee Maggie, to wit, by uttering the words ‘fuck you’ repeatedly and also simultaneously pointing his right index finger at her and also uttered the words ‘let’s go outside and settle and talk’ and ‘you call the police’, you thereby committed an offence punishable under section 13B(1) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act Cap 184 of the 1997 Edition.

The respondent claimed trial to the amended charge. I convicted the respondent on the re-amended charge, which amendments were made by the court, pursuant to section 128 Criminal Procedure Code 2010. On 17 May 2012, I sentenced the respondent to a fine of $800 in default of paying the fine, to serve two days’ imprisonment. The respondent paid the fine and filed a Notice of Appeal against conviction on the same day. The re-amended charge (Exhibit ‘C1B’) reads as follows:

You,

Roger Yow Hok Mun

NRIC No. XXX

are thereby charged that you on 16 April 2008, at about 8pm, at a public place, namely, at the Bukit Gombak Sports and Recreation Centre at 800 Bukit Batok Ave 5, Singapore, did intentionally use abusive words by uttering the words ‘Fuck You’ at one, Yeo Mei Yee Maggie, who was likely to be caused distress, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 13B(1)(a) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, Chapter 184.

Undisputed facts

It was undisputed that at the material time, the complainant and the respondent were a fitness instructor and gym user respectively, at the ClubFITT Gym (“gym”) located at the Bukit Gombak Sports and Recreation Centre. The said gym is run by the Singapore Sports Council (“SSC”). The respondent was using the gym equipment without a towel, which was required of all gym users as per the rules and regulations of the said gym. An incident took place between the parties over the latter’s non-compliance of such a rule at the ‘multi-station’ area where all the exercise machines were located. It was also undisputed that PW2, a gym user was also at the gym at the material time when the incident occurred.

Under the said gym’s Governing Rules and Regulations, rule 8 states as follows: “For your own convenience and personal hygiene, you should have with you a personal towel while working out at the Gym.” (see Exhibit ‘P3’). In the event that any of its gym users did not have a towel while he/she was exercising, the user could purchase one for $1/-.

Prosecution’s case

The prosecution called two witnesses to testify, namely, the complainant and Rikesh Persad Kishna (PW2).

Evidence of the complainant

At the material time, the complainant was patrolling in the gym to see if any of the gym users needed her assistance in operating the exercise machines. There were many gym users at the time. The complainant was informed by one of the gym users, that the respondent was using the machines without a towel. As such, the complainant approached him. She asked him if he had a towel as she did not see any towel next to him. The respondent did not reply and continued to ignore her, to which the complainant asked the respondent again if he had a towel. She also informed him that he could purchase one for $1 and if he refused to do so, he had to cease using the facilities and leave the gym.

At that juncture and without any warning, the respondent stared at her and pointed his right index finger at her and shouted ‘Fuck you’ (‘Fxxk you’) at the complainant. She was taken aback and ‘felt frightened, threatened, humiliated, insulted and intimidated’. According to her, the respondent became more aggressive and came closer to her. He was also behaving in a ‘gangster’-like manner. As she did not feel safe, the complainant walked to the service counter. The respondent, however, followed her from behind simultaneously, uttering similar vulgarities repeatedly. As the complainant walked away quickly, the respondent was about an arm’s length away behind her when he uttered the vulgarities as she could hear them clearly.

The complainant further testified that the respondent then demanded a refund of the entrance fee of $2.50 when he was at the service counter. She however explained that she was unable to do so as he had already used the facilities at the gym. Furthermore, she was also not in-charge of such matters. The respondent refused to accept her explanation and instead turned ‘aggressive’. She gave evidence that the respondent then raised his voice and said to her ‘let’s go out and settle’. The complainant did not do so as she was afraid that she would be assaulted by the respondent.

In addition, the complainant gave evidence that the respondent also challenged her to call the police, to which she did as she felt ‘frightened’ of the respondent’s aggression (see Exhibit ‘P10’ for the ‘999’ call made by the complainant).

The complainant testified that the respondent left the gym and came back again a few minutes later. He threw a towel across the service counter and said sarcastically to the complainant that the towel was a donation to the gym, to which the complainant returned the same to him. However, the respondent walked away. Thereafter, the complainant further testified that about three of the gym users including PW2, approached her and asked if she was alright. They informed her that they heard and saw the incident. The complainant then related the incident to PW2, who also volunteered to be her witness as he was ‘appalled’ by the respondent’s behaviour. Thereafter, the complainant resumed her duties at the gym and waited for the police.

Two police officers arrived fifteen minutes later and took down the complainant’s statement. She identified the respondent to the police as the person ‘harrassing’ her. They also interviewed the respondent outside the gym.

Senior Station Inspector Adil Paiman (DW3), contacted the complainant one week after the incident and requested her to submit a copy of the closed circuit television (CCTV) recording (Exhibit ‘D1’) which purportedly captured the said incident. The same was subsequently submitted by the complainant to Station Inspector Shantiyran s/o Pavadai (DW4), who informed her that the police would be investigating into the matter.

To a suggestion made by the respondent if the music played in the gym could contain vulgarities similar to what was allegedly uttered by him, the complainant gave evidence that at the material time, there was no such music played. She explained that such music was banned in Singapore and furthermore the said gym was a ‘government’ gym run by the SSC. She also testified that the female gym users would also be offended if such music was played in the gym.

The complainant confirmed that she did not know PW2 on a personal basis at any time. Additionally, the complainant informed her immediate supervisor, Ho Mei Lian (DW5) about the incident. The manager, Ms Rachel Tan was also informed of the incident after the complainant had called the police, following which the complainant was instructed to put up a report. The said report was submitted to DW5 the next day. Thereafter, no action was taken by the SSC in relation to the incident between the complainant and the respondent.

During cross-examination, the complainant denied the respondent’s version of what transpired at the gym, in particular, that she had interrupted the respondent while he was lifting weights at the multi-station and had asked him in a loud tone (for no less than five times) to get a towel; that the respondent had placed his right index finger to his lips as a gesture for her to keep quiet; that the respondent had explained to her that he was proceeding to his next and last machine and leaving the gym thereafter. Furthermore, the complainant denied that the respondent had asked her politely to continue with his exercise as he had genuinely forgotten to bring a towel. It was at this juncture that the complainant was alleged to have insisted that the respondent leave the gym immediately which was denied by the complainant.

The complainant also further denied that the respondent continued with the shoulder press by lifting weights above his shoulder, following which she denied deliberately pressing the weights...