| Public Prosecutor v Lee Kum Chuen [2010] SGDC 15 |
| DAC 60945/2009, MA 443/2009 | |
| 13 Jan 2010 | |
| District Court | |
| Joseph Yeo | |
| DPP Ang Feng Qian for the prosecution, Accused in person |
Judgment
13 January 2010 District Judge Joseph Yeo 1 The accused is a 59 year old Singaporean. The complainant, who is also the co-accused and who, I understand, will be dealt with separately, is a 40 year old female Singaporean named Tay Kim Suan. 2 On 4 September 2009 at about 1910 hrs, the accused drove his car into the carpark located near Block 107 Yishun Ring Road. He found an empty lot and proceeded to reverse into it. 3 According to the Statement of Facts, while the accused was trying to reverse his car into the lot, the co-accused drove her car next to the accused at a fast speed and stopped very close to the accused’s car, thereby preventing the accused from reversing into the lot. The accused waved at the co-accused to signal her to move her car. The co-accused failed to do so. 4 The accused got out of his car, approached the co-accused’s car, opened her car door and asked the co-accused to reverse her car. A dispute broke out and the accused closed the co-accused’s car door hard and returned to his car. 5 The co-accused got out of her car, caught up with the accused and proceeded to punch him in the face with both fists, making contact with the accused’s eye in the process. The accused raised his arms to ward off the blows but the co-accused continued to punch the accused. 6 The accused raised his left hand and, with his open palm, hit the co-accused in her face, causing the co-accused to fall down onto the ground as a result. The co-accused stood up and tried to attack the accused again but this time the accused ran back to his car. The co-accused then called the police to complain that she had been assaulted. 7 The accused was thus charged with the offence of affray under s267B of the Penal Code, Cap 224. 8 The accused pleaded guilty before me. 9 On the Statement of Facts that was tendered to me, the accused was being repeatedly punched by the co-accused. His first reaction was not to retaliate but to protect himself by raising his arms to ward off her blows. It was only when this failed to deter the co-accused that he struck the co-accused once with an open palm, bringing the assault to a stop. And when the co-accused sought to resume the assault, he fled. 10 It seemed to me therefore that while the accused was involved in the affray, his involvement was minimal and was, for the most part, that of a victim. 11 In response to my query on this point, the prosecution accepted that the co-accused was the aggressor in the fight. 12 In the premises, I imposed a very light fine of $100.