Close | Public Prosecutor v Wong Jiaxin [2010] SGDC 23 |
| PSM 2158/2009, MA 400/2009 | |
| 18 Jan 2010 | |
| District Court | |
| Shaiffudin Bin Saruwan | |
| SI Wee for the prosecution, Accused in person |
Judgment
18 Jan 10 District Judge Shaiffudin Saruwan Background The accused pleaded guilty to one charge of voluntarily causing hurt under s.323 read with s.34 of the Penal Code, Cap 224. The Facts 2. The said offence happened on 15 Jan 09 at about 1.00 am at the Iwarna Aquarium at No. 70 Pasir Ris Farmway 3. The victim, one Melvin Chan Yong Zhi (Melvin) was an employee at the said aquarium. He was confronted by the accused’s two friends, one Wee Keng Meng (Wee) and Li Suxian (Li) who were then patronising the aquarium. The three had an exchange of words and Wee and Li led Melvin to a spot in the premises where they started assaulting him. In the midst of the assault, the accused joined in and started to throw punches at Melvin. 3. Melvin suffered the following injuries – (i) Perforated right tympanic membrane; (ii) Contusion over the right zygomatic arch; (iii) Swollen right ear with bruising. Antecedents 4. The accused had been placed on probation for 12 months with 100 hours of community service on 7 Jun 06 for a similar offence under s.323 Penal Code, Cap 224. The Mitigation 5. The accused pleaded for leniency. He tendered a written mitigation and a letter written by his father. In his mitigation, the accused explained that he was in the car when he saw a commotion and when he looked in the direction of the commotion, he saw one of his friend pushed to the ground by Melvin. The accused rushed to his friend’s aid. He pushed Melvin away and Melvin reacted by hitting him on his arm. In response, the accused then assaulted him. He expressed his regret and admitted that on hindsight, he should have called for the police instead of getting involved. The accused also informed that he intended to continue with his studies at SIM next year. 6. The accused’s father also tendered a written plea on his behalf. He expresses the accused’s sincerity in changing for the better and the salutary effect of being held in the police lock-up for two days. He asked that the accused be given one more chance. The Sentence 7. The prescribed punishment for an offence under s.323 of the Penal Code, Cap 224, is an imprisonment term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine which may extend to $5000/- or with both. 8. All considered, I sentenced the accused to a fine of $4000/- in default to serve 4 weeks imprisonment. My reasons are set out below. Reasons for Sentence 9. I am guided by the broad sentencing principles for an offence under s.323 in “Sentencing Practice in the Subordinate Courts, Second Edition” (at page 126). It stated as follows – “ The facts and circumstances constituting the offence of hurt vary quite considerably. Each case has to be looked at on the basis of its own particular facts. In general, the factors that would dominate sentence are the degree of deliberation; the extent and duration of the attack; the nature of the injury; and the use of a weapon (ie the dangerousness of it). … From the precedents, if only a minor injury is caused, the offence is dealt with by the imposition of a fine and in some situation a probation order may also be made. The fines range from $500 to $1,000. The custody threshold is likely to be breached if the following aggravating factors are present. Firstly, where serious injury is caused in a deliberate attack. … Secondly, a group attack on a single victim. Thirdly, a deliberate attack with a lethal weapon. Fourthly, a racially motivated attack. Fifthly, where a person in authority commits the offence …” 10. From the statement of facts, it would seem that the attack on the victim involved a group attack by Wee, Li and the accused. Further, one of the injuries suffered by the victim as a result of the attack, and to my mind the most serious - was the “perforated right tympanic membrane”. Taking these two factors into consideration, it would seem that the custody threshold has been crossed. 11. However, a detailed analysis of the events that led to the assault threw a different picture altogether. Although the accused was charged under the common intention limb, it was still important to look at the facts to ascertain the actual role played by the accused before deciding on the appropriate sentence. As it was not challenged by the prosecution, I would accept the accused’s version of events offered by him in his plea in mitigation, which was as follows – “…I was sleeping in the car when I heard a commotion and when I turned to look what had happened (sic), I saw my friend being pushed to the ground and the victim standing in front of my friend. The victim was very big sized so I ran over to push him away to stop him from hurting my friend, he then reacted by swinging his hand at my chest level and hit my arm but I was not hurt, at that point of time I punched him in the face once. “ 12. This version is consistent with the statement of facts that stated that Wee and Li were the initial perpetrators of the assault. The accused had only joined in the assault after it had started in order “…to stop [the victim] from hurting [his] friend…”. In light of this, it could not be said that the accused’s action was a deliberate, pre-meditated attack. It seemed more of a spontaneous action motivated by the urge to help a friend. 13. In the accused’s oral mitigation in court, although he said that he had thrown several punches but he maintained that he only hit the victim once. This is different from the version offered in his written mitigation where he said that he had only punched the victim once. The inconsistency is not crucial as it is to be noted that in both his oral and written mitigation, he had maintained that he had hit the victim only once. That would have been the punch to the face he alluded to in his written mitigation. 14. The injury suffered by the victim that is of some concern was the perforated right ear drum. However, the victim’s medical report stated that he was discharged with medication and given 2 days medical leave. With regard to the perforated right ear drum, he was given an appointment for review at the ENT Specialist Outpatient Clinic. The prosecution did not make any mention of this injury and from the medical report. I therefore come to the conclusion that this injury is not a serious injury. 15. I also took into account that the accused had shown remorse. He admitted admitted that he had been rash and chosen the wrong course of action. On hindsight, he admitted that he should have called for the police straightaway instead of taking things into his own hands. 16. In light of [11] to [15], I was of the opinion that this case is on the borderline of the custody threshold. All considered, I am of the opinion that a fine would be the most appropriate sentence in the accused’s case. This is notwithstanding the fact that the accused had a similar previous conviction in 2006 wherein he was placed on 12 months probation. He has shown remorse. He planned to continue his studies at SIM. His father had written to say that he had seen a big change in the accused’s behaviour after his remand at the police lock-up. I am of the opinion that the accused deserved another chance. Because he has a similar previous conviction in 2006, the quantum of fine should be sufficiently hefty to serve as punishment and as a deterrent. As such, I imposed a fine of $4000/-. 17. The prosecution has lodged an appeal against the sentence. The accused has paid the fine in full.
