Close | Public Prosecutor v Ong Chun Kiat [2010] SGDC 19 |
| DAC 37409/2009 and Others, MA 5/2010 | |
| 15 Jan 2010 | |
| District Court | |
| Joseph Yeo | |
| PO ASP Zainal for prosecution, Paul of Gomez & Vasu for accused |
Judgment
15 January 2010 District Judge Joseph Yeo 1 The accused is a 22 year old male Singaporean. 2 The complainant is a 24 year old police officer attached to Central Police Division. 3 On 8 July 2009 at about 0300 hrs, the complainant and his partner were on foot patrol along Circular Road when they heard a commotion from one of the pubs and proceeded to investigate. 4 Approaching the pub, the complainant and his partner saw the accused coming out of the pub, shouting and gesturing in the direction of the pub. They approached the accused, advised him to calm down and proceeded to interview him. During the interview, the accused shouted and gesticulated at the officers and created a scene. Several warnings were issued to the accused to lower his voice and keep the peace which the accused ignored. 5 The accused was thus placed under arrest for disorderly behaviour. 6 The accused was then put in the back seat of the police vehicle with the complainant who sat to the right of the accused. While travelling back to the station along North Canal Road, the accused raised his right leg and with his knee, struck the complainant on the nose, causing it to bleed. 7 The accused was charged with the following: (a) disorderly behaviour under s20 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance) Act, Cap 184 and; (b) voluntarily causing hurt under s 323 of the Penal Code, Cap 224 8 The accused pleaded guilty to both charges and a third charge of voluntarily causing hurt was taken into consideration. 9 In mitigation, counsel for the Defence highlighted the fact that the accused was presently a Second Sergeant with the Singapore Armed Forces Naval Diving Unit and that a conviction could possibly result in his discharge. It was also stated that the accused used to drink with colleagues about once a week and was, at the material time, so intoxicated that he might not have fully appreciated what he was doing. Character references from his commanding officer and his immediate supervisor were also tendered to me and I was urged, in view of the potential consequences to the accused’s career, to consider probation and call for a pre-sentence report. 10 I declined to consider probation. 11 The accused is an adult. He is, in fact, a Second Sergeant with the Naval Diving Unit, a position of some responsibility and should therefore have known better. 12 While I sympathise with the accused’s predicament vis-à-vis his career, I note that the letter tendered to the court by his commanding officer does not assert that the accused will, as a result of any conviction, be discharged but only that he would meet the guidelines for consideration for discharge and that any such decision would be made after considering not only his conviction but also his past performance. It is thus not a given that the accused will be discharged from the armed forces. 13 In considering what sentence to impose, I took cognisance of the fact that custodial sentences of about 4 weeks was the norm for similar offences of voluntarily causing hurt to public transport workers and in road rage cases. An attack on a police officer ought therefore to be treated no less seriously. 14 This was not a case where an intoxicated person took a wild swing at someone he did not see clearly. To recapitulate, the accused had been arrested and placed in the back of the police vehicle. While in this position, he contrived to raise his right leg and hit the complainant officer sitting on his right in the face with sufficient force to cause the complainant’s nose to bleed. To my mind, that suggests a degree of premeditation, determination and desire to inflict harm on the part of the accused. 15 In the circumstances, I imposed a custodial sentence of 2 months for the offence of voluntarily causing hurt and a $500 fine for the offence of disorderly behaviour.
