District Court of Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Leo Mona
[2020] SGDC 135

Criminal Law – Offences – Voluntarily Causing Hurt – Attempt to Obstruct Justice

[LawNet Editorial Note: An appeal to this decision has been filed in MA 9190/2020/01.]

31 May 2020

District Judge Mathew Joseph:

Introduction

1 The Accused, Leo Mona, claimed trial to two charges under the Penal Code. The first charge (MAC-902258-2019) involved voluntarily causing hurt under s 323 of the Penal Code (“the s 323 charge”):

You…Leo Mona…are charged that you, on 10 August 2017, sometime before 4.48 p.m., at the 8th floor common area of Block 1 Holland Close, Singapore 271001, did voluntarily cause hurt to one Ho Wee Khuan, to wit, by slapping the said Ho Wee Khuan in his face and thereafter pushing him with your hands, causing him to fall backwards and hit his head on the floor, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 323 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed).

2 The second charge (DAC-915424-2018) involved attempting to intentionally obstruct the course of justice under s 204A read with s 511 of the Penal Code (“the s 204A charge”):

You…Leo Mona…are charged that you, on 10 August 2017, sometime after 4.48 p.m., outside Block 1 Holland Close #XXX, Singapore 271001, did attempt to intentionally obstruct the course of justice, to wit, by saying to one Sarada d/o Appi Narayanan in the Hokkien dialect “li gong mn zai”, or words to that effect, which means “you say you don’t know” in English, in order to obtain her assistance in falsely informing the Police that she did not know anything about the case concerning the death of one Ho Wee Khuan (vide Police Report D/20170810/0092) if she were to be questioned by the Police, when you knew that the said Sarada d/o Appi Narayanan was in fact an eyewitness, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 204A read with section 511 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed).

3 At the conclusion of the trial, I found the Accused guilty and convicted her of both offences. I imposed a sentence of 11 weeks’ imprisonment for the s 323 Penal Code charge, and two weeks’ imprisonment for the s 204A Penal Code charge. Both sentences were ordered to run consecutively, giving a global sentence of 13 weeks’ imprisonment. The Accused has appealed against both conviction and sentence. She is currently on bail pending the hearing of the appeal.

4 I now proceed to set out the grounds of my decision for the conviction and sentence.

Background

5 The two charges against the Accused arose out of an incident at the 8^th storey common area of Block 1 Holland Close, Singapore 271001 (“the Block”). On 10 August 2017 at about 4.47PM, the Police received a call from Wilson Loh (“Wilson”) informing “One neighbour fell down outside my house, need ambulance”. This led to the creation of the First Information Report (Exhibit P4). The identity of the neighbour in question who fell down is one Ho Wee Khuan, the victim and deceased in the present case. The deceased was also referred to as “Ah Guan” during the trial.

6 Sometime in the afternoon of 10 August 2017, a female and a Malay male went to look for Ah Guan to confront the deceased for stealing money. Both of them met the deceased near the 8^th storey common area. At that time, one Sarada d/o Appi Narayanan (“Mdm Sarada”) was also present at the common area. Sometime at or about 4.47PM, the Accused joined the common area where Mdm Sarada, Wilson and the deceased were seated nearby. The ensuing events were disputed at trial. It was however common ground between both parties that the deceased was eventually found on the floor with bubbles or saliva coming out from his mouth.

7 The victim was subsequently conveyed to the Accident & Emergency Department of the National University Hospital (“NUH”). A CT head scan showed extensive right subdural haemorrhage with midline shift and loss of grey white differentiation, suggestive of severe head injury and raised intracranial pressure. On 13 August 2017 at 12.50AM, the deceased was pronounced dead. The autopsy report stated that the cause of death was head injury, consistent with a fall with impact to the head in the region of the fracture line (right side of the head towards the right side back of the head).

Issues to be determined

8 Based on the two charges framed against the Accused, the key facts in issue were:

(a) Whether the Accused had slapped and pushed the deceased resulting in him falling to the ground; and

(b) Whether the Accused had uttered the Hokkien words “li gong mn zai”, or words to that effect to mean “you say you don’t know” in English.

Case for the Prosecution

9 The Prosecution called a total of 10 witnesses to give evidence at the trial. The following witnesses gave evidence at the trial:

(a) PW1 – Dr Lee Chin Thye

(b) PW2 – Sarada d/o Appi Narayanan

(c) PW3 – Wilson Loh

(d) PW4 – Sgt Muhamad Assyariff Bin Omar

(e) PW5 – Sgt Aw Shi Lei

(f) PW6 – Dr Sim Tiong Beng

(g) PW7 – Assistant Prof Sein Lwin

(h) PW8 – Vernita Erat

(i) PW9 – ASP Tan Book Kok

(j) PW10 – Tan See Hua

10 The evidence of the Prosecution’s witnesses is summarised below.

Evidence of Witnesses at the Lift Landing

PW2 Sarada d/o Appi Narayanan and PW3 Wilson Loh

11 PW3 Wilson resided at the Block. The Accused and the deceased resided at the Block as well. Both Wilson and the Accused resided on the 8^th storey at unit #XXX and #XXX respectively (units were directly opposite each other), while the deceased resided in a unit on the 2^nd storey. All parties were acquainted with each other.

12 On 10 August 2017, PW2 Mdm Sarada, who is the mother of Wilson, had gone to Wilson’s unit at the Block to tidy up his place. During the period of August 2017, Mdm Sarada said that she had gone to her son’s place almost everyday because he was running a canteen at that time. Mdm Sarada talked to the Accused often and addresses her as “Auntie” although she does not know the Accused’s full name.^{[note: 1]}

13 Mdm Sarada arrived at the Block on 10 August 2017 at 10.30AM, and at around 11.30AM, she went downstairs to the coffeeshop to have some food.^{[note: 2]} Subsequently, she went to the common area at the 8^th storey where the chairs were placed by her son, Wilson.^{[note: 3]} While Mdm Sarada was seated at the common area, she testified that the deceased came to near where she was seated.^{[note: 4]} Soon after, a female (who also resided at the Block) and a male Malay came and got into an argument with the deceased. According to Mdm Sarada, the male Malay alleged that the deceased had stolen money, and threatened to make a police report.^{[note: 5]} The female and male Malay left after the argument. After they left, the deceased took a seat at a chair next to Mdm Sarada. She remained seated and both of them started talking.^{[note: 6]}

14 As for Wilson, he testified that he only returned to his unit at about 3-4PM after coming back from his work place. When he arrived at the lift landing of the 8^th storey, he saw Mdm Sarada sitting at the common area with the deceased.^{[note: 7]} He came to know subsequently from Mdm Sarada that the deceased had a dispute earlier with one other neighbour (whom Wilson addresses as “Gaobu”) and the Accused (whom Wilson addresses as “Ah Jie”), where the Accused had alleged that the deceased was stealing the money from a neighbour.^{[note: 8]}

15 Wilson eventually also testified that he had sat down at the common area together with the deceased and Mdm Sarada, and had talked to the deceased about the dispute. He observed that the deceased had gone to the Accused’s house and knocked on her door several times, scolding vulgarities and calling loudly for her to come out.^{[note: 9]} The deceased explained to Wilson that he wanted the Accused to come out so that he could retrieve his ATM card from her.^{[note: 10]}

16 The Accused eventually came out from her house and walked towards the common area with a few cans of beer and some food. The Accused also explained to Wilson that she had gathered some money together with a neighbour “Gaobu” to return to the neighbour who alleged that the deceased had stolen his money.^{[note: 11]} Mdm Sarada was not present during this particular conversation, and had only come out from Wilson’s house and back to the common area after this conversation.^{[note: 12]}

17 When all four of them were seated at the table, Wilson told his mother that the Accused said she managed to get about $30 to $40 to return to the neighbour. At this time, the deceased tried to claim his ATM card from the Accused, and both of them started quarrelling, with the deceased starting to use vulgarities. After seeing the quarrel, Wilson did not want to be involved and left the table to go back to his house. Mdm Sarada remained at the common area at the 8^th storey while the deceased the Accused continued quarrelling.^{[note: 13]} After a short while, Wilson heard a loud “bang”. He rushed out to the house gate and saw the deceased lying on the floor.^{[note: 14]}

18 During the argument between the Accused and the deceased, Mdm Sarada testified that she heard that the deceased scolding the Accused with the words “you feel good to be fucked?” in Hokkien.^{[note: 15]} The Accused became angry and slapped the deceased on the side of his face. Then, standing face to face with the deceased, she pushed the deceased with two hands. This led to the deceased falling.^{[note: 16]} Wilson was inside the unit, and had only came out after he heard a loud “bang” sound. When Wilson came out of his unit, he saw the deceased lying face-up on the floor. Wilson also saw that there were some “bubbles” coming out of the deceased’s mouth.

19 Mdm Sarada also testified that when the deceased fell, she became frightened and ran back to Wilson’s unit.^{[note: 17]} Wilson asked his mother what happened, and Mdm Sarada told him that the Accused had slapped the deceased and pushed him on the chest which led to the fall.^{[note: 18]} At that point in time, Wilson was carrying a phone and had wanted to call “999”. However, Wilson testified that the Accused told him “don’t need to call, a while, he will wake up”.^{[note: 19]} Nonetheless, Wilson felt the need to do so and called for “999” within minutes (at about 4.48PM) of the collapse of the deceased.^{[note: 20]}

20 When the Police arrived, they took the Accused to one side. As the Accused was being brought to another side of the corridor and while passing by Wilson’s unit where Mdm Sarada was standing, the Accused said “Mn zai mai gong” in Hokkien, which was translated to mean “if you don’t know, don’t say”.^{[note: 21]} Mdm Sarada testified that she understood this to mean the Accused was asking her not to get involved.^{[note: 22]} Mdm Sarada testified that she was standing inside the unit about 1m away from the doorway and watching what was happening, and that the main door and the gate of the unit were left open.^{[note: 23]}

21 Wilson similarly recounted how the Accused had said in Hokkien words which were translated to mean “if you don’t know anything, don’t anyhow say it out”, when the Accused was outside his unit. At that point in time, there was one police officer at the corridor with the Accused, one officer talking to his mother, Mdm Sarada, and another officer with him.^{[note: 24]}

Evidence of the Paramedic

PW8 Vernita Erat

22 PW8 Vernita Erat (“Vernita”) was a paramedic with the SCDF who attended to the incident on 10 August 2017. Vernita and her team of four headed over to the Block after receiving a call. They were the first responders to arrive at the scene of the incident.^{[note: 25]}

23 Vernita testified that when she arrived at the 8^th storey of the Block, she saw the deceased being propped up by a friend, and that the deceased looked unconscious.^{[note: 26]} Vernita also noticed that the deceased was not visibly breathing and so she checked his pulse and noticed that his pulse was absent.^{[note: 27]} She then directed her medic to start compressions on the deceased while she pasted AED pads to check the deceased’s rhythm. According to Vernita, she and her team spent about 20 to 25 minutes at the 8^th storey of the Block before the deceased was conveyed to NUH. They were unable to regain the deceased’s pulse before reaching the hospital.^{[note: 28]}

24 Vernita testified that while she was at the 8^th storey, she tried to ask a few people of the history of the incident, but had only managed to obtain a very brief history of the incident. She also recalled a female of about 40 to 60 years-old telling her that the deceased had suddenly fell backwards and turned unconscious. According to her recollection, the same female also told her that the deceased had consumed pills before the day of the incident. Vernita did not record the name of the female who had provided the information, neither did she take any particular notice of her appearance.^{[note: 29]}

Evidence of the first Police officers to arrive at the scene

25 PW4 Sgt Muhamad Assyariff bin Omar (“Sgt Assyariff”) and PW5 Sgt Aw Shi Lei (“Sgt Aw”) were the first police officers to arrive at the common area of the 8^th storey of the Block. When they arrived at the scene of the incident, the paramedics were already there attending to the deceased.

PW4 Sgt Muhamad Assyariff bin Omar

26 Sgt Assyariff testified that apart from noticing that the paramedics were attending to the deceased, he also saw two other persons and the Accused.^{[note: 30]} He tried to locate the complainant, Mr Wilson. Wilson approached Sgt Assyariff who confirmed Wilson’s identity as the complainant. Wilson told Sgt Assyariff that when he was inside the house, he heard a loud “thud” coming from the common corridor. Wilson then came out from his unit and saw the deceased lying on the floor unconscious, and that was when he called for an ambulance.^{[note: 31]}

27 When Sgt Assyariff proceeded to interview Mdm Sarada, Mdm Sarada told him that she was outside with the Accused sitting down, having a chit-chat when the Accused and the deceased started arguing about “monetary issues”, and the Accused slapped the deceased once and pushed him on his chest,^{[note: 32]} resulting in him falling backwards.^{[note: 33]} Sgt Assyariff also interviewed the Accused, who spoke in simple broken English. The Accused had told him that she did not push the deceased, and maintained that the deceased fell by himself.^{[note: 34]}

PW5 Sgt Aw Shi Lei

28 As for Sgt Aw, she confirmed that she had attended to the same incident on 10 August 2017 with her partner Sgt Assyariff. Her role was the recorder of the log sheet.^{[note: 35]} When Sgt Aw arrived at the 8^th story of the Block with Sgt Assyariff, the paramedics were already attending to the deceased. While they were doing so, Sgt Aw found some pills in the deceased’s pockets when she was looking through his shorts’ pockets for his particulars or any identity card.^{[note: 36]} She passed the pills to the paramedics.^{[note: 37]}

29 At one point, Sgt Aw saw Sgt Assyariff being brought to a side by Wilson while she was still standing at the common area where the deceased was.^{[note: 38]} Afterwards Sgt Assyariff told Sgt Aw that the Accused was engaged in a scuffle before the deceased was found lying on the floor. Both Sgt Aw and Sgt Assyariff then brought the Accused to an area near the staircase landing where they asked her some questions. The Accused was asked what happened during the session and whether she pushed the deceased, to which she denied pushing.^{[note: 39]} Sgt Aw then brought the Accused nearer to the Accused’s unit, and she stayed with the Accused for a few hours until handcuffs were placed on the Accused at about 9.10PM.^{[note: 40]}

Evidence of the Medical Experts

PW6 Dr Sim Tiong Beng

30 PW6 Dr Sim Tiong Beng (“Dr Sim”) was a Senior Consultant in the Emergency Medicine Department of the NUH (“EMD”). He was the senior doctor who was supervising on shift at the time when the deceased was brought to NUH by the paramedics. Dr Sim later prepared a medical report of the deceased (Exhibit P9).

31 According to Dr Sim, when the deceased arrived at the EMD, the ECG showed that the deceased had a very irregular rhythm that could be lethal. Specifically, the deceased’s pulse was very weak and could be life threatening. The irregular heart rhythm needed to be treated as soon as possible.^{[note: 41]} A CT scan done at the EMD revealed extensive right subdural haemorrhage with midline shift and loss of grey-white differentiation suggestive of severe head injury. This indicated that the bleeding was acute (taking place within a few hours), and that the swollen brain suggested that the pressure in the brain was very high due to the bleeding. Subdural haemorrhage usually occurs when there is head injury. Dr Sim further confirmed that this “head injury” and “increase in pressure” was a direct result of trauma.^{[note: 42]}

32 Dr Sim’s overall impression was a likely overdose of benzodiazepines and severe head injury. The impression of overdose of benzodiazepines was clarified subsequently to be a “presumptive diagnosis” based on the history taken and also the drug screening and urine screening which revealed positive benzodiazepine in the samples.^{[note: 43]} Nonetheless, Dr Sim testified that “definitely, there is…severe head injury from the subdural haemorrhage”.^{[note: 44]}

33 Lastly, Dr Sim also qualified his report in the use of the words “cardiac arrest”. He explained that he wrote down “after the cardiac arrest, he fell backwards” based on the history that there was an overdose. On hindsight, this was an assumption as he would not have known whether the deceased suffered the cardiac arrest and fell, or he could have just collapsed and then fell to the floor. It was noted on record that the words “cardiac arrest” should be retracted because he could not be sure whether there was a cardiac arrest before the fall.^{[note: 45]}

PW7 Assistant Prof Sein Lwin

34 PW7 Assistant Prof Sein Lwin (“Prof Sein Lwin”) was a Consultant Neurosurgeon at the Division of Neurosurgery at the NUH. He was the Consultant Neurosurgeon on call when the deceased was brought in to the EMD. He was involved in the treatment of the deceased. Prof Sein Lwin also prepared a medical report on the deceased (Exhibit P8).

35 Prof Sein Lwin described that the significant brain swelling was compressing the brainstem where all the important nerve fibres and vital centres are located. Thus, whenever there is a compression in the brainstem, this can lead to a loss of consciousness which can cause a sudden cardiac arrest and respiratory arrest.^{[note: 46]} In the case of the deceased, the swelling can be caused by either a right traumatic brain injury causing in the haemorrhage in the brain, or hypoxic brain injury which refers to a more extensive brain swelling due to a disruption or lack of oxygen and blood supply to the brain.^{[note: 47]} When a person is involved in an accident, either a road traffic accident or a fall where the brain can hit the back as well as the front, this can cause the sudden disruption of the brainstem area which that may explain how the person can get a cardiac arrest. A sudden heart stop is not an uncommon finding in traumatic brain injury.^{[note: 48]}

36 When questioned under cross-examination by Defence Counsel as to the effects of benzodiazepine, Prof Sein Lwin explained that benzodiazepine does not cause cardiac arrest, and can only cause a respiratory depression and respiratory arrest if the dosage is large enough. He acknowledged that if the dosage is large enough, the patient could get an anoxic brain injury which may lead to a collapse.^{[note: 49]} However, from his professional point of view, Prof Sein Lwin did not think that the benzodiazepine was the main cause of lack of blood supply to the brain. Rather, traumatic injury was one of the main causes of a cardiac arrest.^{[note: 50]} In the case of the deceased, the death was primarily due to the lack of supply to the brain because of the fall.^{[note: 51]}

PW1 Dr Lee Chin Thye

37 Dr Lee Chin Thye (“Dr Lee”) was a Consultant Forensic Pathologist with the Health Sciences Authority. He performed an autopsy on 13 August 2017 on the deceased who had passed away on 12 August 2017 at 12.50PM. Dr Lee prepared the autopsy report (Exhibit P2).

38 Dr Lee had stated the cause of death as head injury.^{[note: 52]} In his autopsy report, Dr Lee commented that the appearance of the head injury was consistent with a fall with impact to the head in the region of the fracture line (right side of the head towards the right side back of the head).^{[note: 53]} This head injury, based on the amount of haemorrhage, as well as the extent of injury, would be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death due to the pressure exerted on the brain.^{[note: 54]} The pressure could be caused by the haemorrhage within the cranial cavity, as well as the contusions on the surface of the brain.^{[note: 55]} Contusions are essentially bruises on the surface of the brain. In the autopsy report, it was indicated that there were cortical contusions over the inferior surface of the right and left frontal lobes, and these contusions can be formed when the head is impacted. These contusions are linked to the haemorrhage which is due to shearing forces exerted on the blood vessels when the brain is rattling within the skull cavity after being impacted. Trauma would, by itself, be sufficient to cause these injuries. When the injury to the head is severe enough, it will cause the brain to “shut down” and cause a person to lose his pulse as well as the capacity to breathe.^{[note: 56]} Dr Lee confirmed that it was trauma that had caused the injuries observed in the brain or head of the deceased.^{[note: 57]}

39 Dr Lee ruled out “heart attack” as a case of death as heart attack was not detected.^{[note: 58]} In the autopsy report, it was also stated that the post-mortem toxicology and histology, based on samples taken at the time of the autopsy on 13 August 2017, did not reveal any other toxicological or anatomical cause of death.^{[note: 59]} Dr Lee was also referred to the toxicology report dated 22 August 2017 based on samples of the deceased taken on 11 August 2017 when he was hospitalised at NUH (Exhibit P6). Based on the levels of substances detected, Dr Lee commented that none of them were within the lethal or fatal range, and the presence of those medications would not have caused death. Rather, the head injury was sufficient or severe enough to cause death.^{[note: 60]}

Evidence of the Investigating Officer and Interpreter

PW9 ASP Tan Boon Kok

40 PW9 ASP Tan Boon Kok (“ASP Tan”) was a Senior Investigating Officer with the Special Investigation Section of the Criminal Investigations Department (“CID”). ASP Tan had taken over the investigation from Clementi Police Division on 10 August 2017, about four hours after the case was reported.^{[note: 61]} When ASP Tan took over the case, he was handed the attire worn by the deceased, as well as a slab of four tablets. The tablets had the words “Epam” written behind the slab with the contents of Nitrazepam. The pills were originally given to the previous investigator from Clementi Police Station by the hospital, and contained the label from NUH with the deceased’s NRIC and personal particulars.^{[note: 62]}

41 ASP Tan had made an official request to the hospital on 11 August 2017 to draw a blood sample from the deceased when he was still alive. He had done so as there was allegation of the deceased taking drugs. When he received the toxicology report dated 22 August 2017 (Exhibit P6), it stated that the deceased had nitrazepam in his blood stream, which is consistent with the tablets found on him.^{[note: 63]}

42 As part of the investigations, ASP Tan also reviewed the CCTV footages of the lifts at the 8^th storey of the Black. He managed to recover the footages of the deceased and his walking demeanour at about 3.30PM on the day of the incident, about an hour before the case was reported.^{[note: 64]} The footages showed that the deceased was walking on his own, and that there was no sign of any abnormality in his gait. There was no other footages of the deceased.^{[note: 65]}

PW10 Tan See Lay

43 PW10 Tan See Lay (“Ms Tan”) was called as a rebuttal witness. Ms Tan was a Mandarin interpreter with CID. On 30 August 2017, she had assisted ASP Tan in recording two separate statements from the Accused, namely the long statement recorded under s 22 of the CPC (Exhibit D1) and cautioned statement recorded under s 23 of the CPC (Exhibit D4). Both were recorded at the Institute of Mental Health (“IMH”).

44 With regard to the recording of Exhibit D4, the signature of the Accused at the bottom of each page would signify that the Accused understood what was mentioned to her. The Accused’s signature, together with the signature of ASP Tan and Ms Tan, would be appended after the contents from the page was read to the Accused. On page 5 of the statement, Ms Tan confirmed that the contents were provided by the Accused. After the Accused provided the information, Ms Tan would request for the Accused to pause to interpret the information to ASP Tan. ASP Tan would then write it down, and both ASP Tan and Ms Tan would ask the Accused to continue.^{[note: 66]} On the second last page, the signatures were to acknowledge that the statement was read back to the Accused in English, and Ms Tan had interpreted the same back to the Accused in Mandarin. The Accused maintained that it was her statement, and was invited to sign. The Accused was asked if there was anything to add, correct or delete from the statement, but she declined.^{[note: 67]} Ms Tan testified that the Accused “looked normal” and could understand what was happening. The Accused could also answer coherently to questions that were asked.^{[note: 68]}

45 With regard to the recording of Exhibit D1, ASP Tan would ask the Accused the questions in English, and thereafter Ms Tan would interpret those questions into Mandarin for the Accused. The Accused would then answer in Mandarin, and subsequently Ms Tan would interpret it back to ASP Tan in English. After the statement was printed out, Ms Tan read the statement back to the Accused in Mandarin.^{[note: 69]} In relation to suggestions of any misunderstanding when the statement was recorded, Ms Tan testified that the Accused was able to understand the contents of what was read to her and had in fact requested for amendments to be made to the statement. The Accused could also understand what Ms Tan was saying, and answer Ms Tan’s questions coherently. The Accused was also able to confirm that the information in the statement was accurate.^{[note: 70]}

Case for the Defence

46 At the close of the Prosecution’s case, I found that the Prosecution had made out a prima facie case against the Accused on both charges. Accordingly, the Accused was called to enter her defence. The Accused elected to take the stand and to give evidence from the witness box.^{[note: 71]} The Defence called the Accused as its sole witness.

D1 Leo Mona (Accused)

47 The Accused testified that on 10 August 2017, she was sick. The deceased had gone to the Accused’s house to watch television, but the Accused did not pay too much attention to him as she was feeling unwell.^{[note: 72]} After that, she gave $10 to the deceased to buy things, and then two individuals, one Esther and a Malay man, banged on her door loudly. When she opened the door, both of them dashed into the unit, shouting loudly. She shouted at them to leave the place, and in the end they went out to the corridor, and the deceased went out as well.

48 At the corridor, Esther and the Malay man claimed that the deceased had stolen $70 from them. Suddenly, the Malay man jumped up, removed his clothes, and used his handphone and pointed at the Accused, saying that if the money is not returned he will call the police to arrest the deceased.^{[note: 73]} She was very frightened. Esther suggested that the Accused return $30, and Esther herself will return $40. The Accused then went downstairs to the ATM to withdraw money, while Esther and the Malay man followed her. She withdrew $100, the transaction details of which were evidenced by the Accused’s POSB passbook (Exhibit D2). After withdrawing the cash from the ATM machine, the Accused passed the money to Esther and the Malay man. She then went to buy things before going back home.^{[note: 74]}

49 When she arrived at the 8^th storey of the Block, she saw the deceased seated on a chair. Mdm Sarada and Wilson were also seated nearby. She went to her home to place her items, and afterwards she felt very tired. She took a can of beer, and when she saw Wilson outside, she took a can of beer for him as well. She did not consume the beer. When she turned about to check on the deceased, the deceased was creating a sound “Airrr", and his saliva was running out of his mouth. The Accused then heard Mdm Sarada “kept talking” which was strange because she had never behaved in that way. As Mdm Sarada kept talking, Wilson asked his mother to go back home. Mdm Sarada then went back to the unit, followed by Wilson. After both of them went back home, the Accused said they closed the door. When the Accused turn around, she noticed the deceased smiled, and there were some foam oozing out from his mouth, and his eyelids were looking up.^{[note: 75]}

50 With regard to how the deceased had fallen, the Accused testified that the Accused was previously seated, and he had fell shortly after she saw him standing up. When this happened, the Accused testified that Wilson’s mother, Mdm Sarada, was not present. Wilson was not present as well. Both of them came out after the deceased had fallen down. Wilson was the first one to come out from the house.^{[note: 76]} The Accused felt blur at that time, and she kept calling the deceased’s name and tried to wake him up. As the deceased still did not wake up, she went to look for the deceased’s mute elder brother.^{[note: 77]}

51 After the deceased’s elder brother arrived, the Accused testified that both Wilson and herself said to each other to call for the ambulance.^{[note: 78]} Throughout the entire incident, the Accused testified that there was no occasion during the meeting or dialogue with the deceased that she pushed him. Neither were there any vulgarities used by the deceased on her.^{[note: 79]}

52 After the paramedics and the Police arrived, the police officers subsequently brought the Accused to a different location on the 8^th storey. The Accused testified that when the deceased was about to be brought away, she wanted to go to the toilet. According to the Accused, the female officer said that the Accused had to go further away from the corridor.^{[note: 80]} The Accused denied using the words “li kong mn chai” while she was brought along the corridor.^{[note: 81]}

Analysis and Court’s Findings

53 From the account of the evidence given above, it is immediately apparent that there were several irreconcilable differences between the Accused’s testimony and the evidence given by the Prosecution witnesses. In such a case, the duty of the court is to assess the credibility of the Prosecution’s witnesses against the version put forth by the Accused. Having regard to the totality of the entire evidence that was before the court, I was of the view that the evidence put forth by the Prosecution’s witnesses bore that ring of truth as to the material facts of the unfortunate incident which resulted in the death of the deceased.

54 I proceed now to set out my reasons and findings below.

The evidence of Mdm Sarada and Wilson was credible, consistent and corroborated by other witnesses

55 Mdm Sarada and Wilson were the closest in proximity to the fateful incident at the Block. They were also key eye witnesses. Overall, I found that both Mdm Sarada and Wilson had testified in a clear and forthright manner in relation to the events that unfolded on the 10 August 2017.

56 In relation to the s 323 Penal Code charge, Mdm Sarada had testified that she saw the argument between the Accused and the deceased, during which Mdm Sarada heard the deceased scolded “you feel good to be fucked?” in Hokkien at the Accused. The Accused then became angry, and slapped the deceased on the side of his face and pushed the deceased with two hands which led to the deceased falling. Even though Mdm Sarada admitted under cross-examination that she did not see exactly how the deceased landed or which side of his head hit the floor first,^{[note: 82]} she did see the deceased fall and lying on the floor.^{[note: 83]} This is significant.

57 Further, Mdm Sarada’s evidence was corroborated by Wilson. He had testified that Mdm Sarada had run back into his unit and had told him that the Accused had slapped the deceased and had pushed him on the chest which led to the fall. Similarly, there was also corroboration by Sgt Assyariff, who had testified in Court that when he interviewed Mdm Sarada after the incident, Mdm Sarada told him that the Accused slapped the deceased once and pushed him on his chest, resulting in him falling backwards.

58 I note also that Mdm Sarada’s version of the incident was also consistent with the brain injury suffered by the deceased, which was a direct result of trauma to the head.

59 I move next to the s 204A Penal Code charge.

60 Here, I accepted Mdm Sarada’s evidence that the Accused had uttered the words “Mn zai mai gong” in Hokkien, which was translated to mean “if you don’t know, don’t say”. I note that when the Accused had spoken these words, it is incontrovertible that Mdm Sarada would have been able to hear the words. At that time, she was standing at the main door of the home unit and the grills of the door were wide open. Further, Mdm Sarada was standing at only about a metre away from the door. This was also corroborated by Wilson who testified that he had heard the same utterance of these words by the Accused. Wilson had testified that the Accused had specifically said these words at the time when one police officer was at the corridor, while the other police officer was speaking to Mdm Sarada. In my view, the close proximity of the Accused to Mdm Sarada raised the irresistible inference that the words were spoken deliberately and were also uttered with the intention to attempt to obtain Mdm Sarada’s assistance in falsely informing the police officer that she did not know anything about the incident.

61 As for the testimony of Wilson, I had found him to be a credible witness. He gave his evidence in a simple and straightforward manner. I was impressed with his refreshing candour. He had matter of factly explained that when he saw that the Accused and the deceased had started quarrelling, he left the table. He testified frankly that he did not want to be involved. This was also corroborated by Sgt Assyariff’s testimony in Court. At the same time, I am mindful that Wilson did not see the precise moments leading up to the fall of the deceased since he had only come out from his house after he heard the loud “bang”. Nonetheless, Wilson’s testimony was significant. He corroborated Mdm Sarada’s evidence that an argument or dispute had clearly erupted between the Accused and the deceased, which then led to the fall of the deceased.

62 For completeness, I note here that the Accused had raised the suggestion in Court that Wilson had reason to fabricate false evidence against her. She explained that it was something which happened between the deceased and Wilson in May 2017 which she “cannot disclose” in Court. After that incident, she said that “Wilson and his mother ignored [the Accused]”.^{[note: 84]}

63 I note that these allegations were never put to Wilson. Furthermore, the Accused’s refusal to disclose any particular details of the incident casts doubts on the credibility of her story. In any event, the Accused’s allegation that Mdm Sarada and Wilson had turned cold towards the Accused was not consistent with the evidence that they would sit down together at the common area on the 10 August 2017 to have a conversation. Furthermore, there was no credible evidence before the court of any bad blood in their relationship as neighbour that could be cause for any possible motivation for either Mdm Sarada or Wilson to falsely implicate the Accused. As such, I rejected the Accused’s unsubstantiated claim.

64 In view of the above, I had no hesitation in coming to the finding that Mdm Sarada was a reliable witness. I had observed her very carefully while she gave her evidence in court. She testified in a clam and steady manner. There was a palpable simplicity in the manner that she gave her evidence, which was convincing and sincere. At no point did she seek to embellish her evidence. Rather, she came across as resolute and credible in her testimony. Here, I pause to mention that she had steadfastly maintained that there was only one slap made by the Accused onto the deceased’s face and a single push by the Accused which led to the deceased falling. As such, her evidence was clear and straightforward. In these circumstances, I had no hesitation in accepting Mdm Sarada’s version as the true version of events. It was a version that was also corroborated by Wilson and the other evidence given through the various Prosecution witnesses.

The evidence of the Accused was inconsistent and haphazard

65 I turn now to the Accused’s version of events.

66 At the outset, I should state that the Accused’s evidence was inconsistent and at times, hard to follow. Apart from several crucial gaps in her version of events, there were also irreconcilable differences between her testimony in court and with her own statements recorded in Exhibit D1 and Exhibit D4. When these differences were put to her during cross-examination, I did not find that there were any satisfactory explanations for the multiple inconsistencies for which she could otherwise be given the benefit of the doubt. I will set out below these material inconsistencies. These material inconsistencies are categorised into three main sequential stages – before the collapse of the deceased, how the collapse happened, and what happened after the deceased had collapsed.

67 A crucial area of difference between the Accused’s version in court and the testimony of Mdm Sarada, was that the Accused’s version did not mention any argument that the deceased was involved in with the Accused. Instead, the Accused testified that after she went back to the Block and arrived at the 8^th storey, she noticed the deceased to be making incoherent noises. This was in stark contrast from her statement in Exhibit D4, which stated that the deceased had “scolded [the Accused] for giving [the neighbours] the money”.

68 Similarly, in Exhibit D1, the Accused had stated that when she stepped out of the lift, she observed the deceased to be scolding the neighbours.^{[note: 85]} When the DPP pointed out the difference to the Accused during cross-examination, the Accused replied that after the police officer had brought her to the police station, she was “blur” and “shocked”:^{[note: 86]} She went on to explain and elaborated:^{[note: 87]}

“I was blur about this at that time. I’m not sure whether the policeman—police officer misunderstood my words. I could have told them about the dis—the argument that they—they had, meaning, the argument with the Malay man who stayed at the 7th floor. At that time, I was blur.”

69 When pressed further by the DPP regarding whether the deceased had scolded the neighbours, the Accused explained that she could not recall what happened.^{[note: 88]} When she was later asked whether she could recall what happened on 10 August 2017 or the events on 30 August 2017 when the statement was recorded, the Accused replied that she had lost her mind:^{[note: 89]}

“I still remember what happened on the 10^th of August. After I went to the police station, I went to Changi General Hospital, I was too shocked. I lost my mind on—after that.”

70 Here, I pause to note that the prosecution was being fair to the Accused. The DPP then attempted to clarify with the Accused why she had stated that the Police officer may have misunderstood her.^{[note: 90]} The Accused replied that she was too shocked and could not recall:^{[note: 91]}

“Because at that time, I--I did not know what I was talking. I--I remember what happened on the 10 ^th of August but subsequent to that, I was too shocked. I cannot recall a lot of things. I cannot recall, I do not know how to explain.”

71 In court, the Accused testified that after she saw the deceased’s mouth foaming and his eyes looking upwards, she patted the deceased’s face, and saw that the deceased moved a bit and thought that he was “awakened”. According to the Accused, the deceased later stood up on his own and fell immediately after he stood up.^{[note: 92]} She maintained that she never shook the deceased:^{[note: 93]}

“I want to explain, I understand what happened on the 10^th of August. So, what I’m going to talk about now is what happened on the day of the incident. From beginning till the end of the incident, I never shook Ah Guan.”

(Emphasis added)

72 The Accused was then shown her statement in Exhibit D1 which confirmed that she shook the deceased on the shoulders. She could not provide any explanation as to why the discrepancy existed. She merely denied that she had shook the deceased.

73 There were other significant differences. These related to significant differences between the post-incident conduct of the Accused as stated in her statements and the version which she gave in Court.

74 In this regard, the Accused testified that before the deceased fell, Wilson had already came out from his house and saw everything. This was not mentioned in either of her statements in both Exhibit D1 and Exhibit D4. When the DPP questioned the Accused as to why this was not told to the Police on 30 August 2017 when the statements were recorded, the Accused replied:^{[note: 94]}

“I do not know what happened. I knew nothing, why he ar---why I was being arrested. The police only asked me did I push him? And I denied doing so.”

75 I note here that in Exhibit D1, the Accused had stated, “[t]here was no one beside me. But I am not sure if there is anybody behind me”. When the DPP questioned the Accused on this, the Accused replied that she had lost her mind:^{[note: 95]}

“When the statement was recorded, I lost my mind so I do not know what to tell them. When the statement was recorded, I lost my mind.”

76 With the above explanations given by the Accused, I find that she was clearly being evasive in her answers. I also find that the Accused’s claims to have lost her mind to be inherently improbable. This was entirely self-serving and convenient testimony. More than that, a claim to have “lost my mind” without any attempt to even substantiate such a claim was simply incredulous. I simply could not find it reasonable or credible either that the Accused could have been so shocked or “lost” as to be unable to give a proper statement in Exhibit D1 and Exhibit D4.

77 In this regard, it must be borne in mind that the IMH report dated 29 August 2017 tendered by the Defence (Exhibit D3) had stated unequivocally that when the Accused was examined by Dr Kenneth Koh on 15, 22 and 29 August 2017 during the period of remand at IMH, the Accused was found to be of sound mind and fit to plead at the material time. Dr Kenneth Koh had also noted that the Accused engaged well in interviews, and that there was no psychomotor retardation or agitation observed. The Accused was also able to follow the ward routine normally, and there were no psychotic elements.^{[note: 96]}

78 I have also noted that on 30 August 2017 when the 2 statements Exhibit D1 and Exhibit D4 of the Accused were recorded, Ms Tan the CID interpreter testified that the Accused had “looked normal”, could understand what was happening, and could answer coherently to questions that were asked.

Conclusion

79 In essence, the Accused’s defence was essentially one of bare denial. She denied slapping and pushing the deceased victim. She also denied saying the words “li kong mn zai” or words to that effect to Mdm Sarada to attempt to obtain Mdm Sarada’s assistance in falsely informing the Police that she did not know anything about the incident. However, apart from her own testimony, there was no other evidence that supported her version of events. On the whole, I did not find the Accused to be a credible or reliable witness.

80 As regards the Accused’s tentative defence that alluded to an overdose of the medication taken by the deceased and leading to the fall of the deceased, I found that this was not borne out by the objective medical evidence. The cause of death was stated to be due to head injury. The medical evidence also confirmed that the level of substances detected pursuant to the toxicology report (Exhibit P6) were of low levels, none of which were within lethal range. I note also that based on the evidence given by Mdm Sarada and Wilson, the deceased was observed to be able to speak and converse normally on 10 August 2017. Further, the CCTV footages reviewed by ASP Tan also revealed that the deceased could walk on his own with no sign of abnormality in his gait.

Conclusion

81 The defence of the Accused was a bare denial. Furthermore, there were no other defence witnesses called by the Accused to corroborate her claimed version of the events of 10 August 2017. Having carefully considered the totality of the evidence before the court, including the objective medical evidence, I had no hesitation in rejecting the defence of the Accused. I was satisfied that the Prosecution had proved the case against the Accused beyond a reasonable doubt. A conviction of the Accused could not be said to be unsafe in view of the totality of the evidence before the court.

82 Accordingly, I found the Accused guilty of the two charges proceeded against her and convicted her of the same.

Antecedents

83 The Accused has no previous antecedents.

Prescribed punishment

84 The prescribed punishment for an offence under s 323 Penal Code is an imprisonment term of up to two years, or fine of up to $5,000, or both. As for an offence under s 204A Penal Code, the prescribed punishment is an imprisonment term of up to seven years, or a fine, or both. When read with s 511 of the Penal Code, the longest term of imprisonment that may be imposed would be 3.5 years (half of seven years).

Prosecution’s submission on sentence

85 The Prosecution submitted for a sentence of at least 12 weeks’ imprisonment to be imposed for the charge under s 323 of the Penal Code, and at least two weeks’ imprisonment to be imposed for the charge under s 204A read with s 511 of the Penal Code.^{[note: 97]}

86 Applying the framework in Low Song Chye v PP [2019] SGHC 140 (“Low Song Chye”) in relation to s 323 Penal Code offences, the Prosecution submitted that the present case fell squarely within Band 3.^{[note: 98]} Based on the evidence of the Prosecution’s expert witnesses and the objective medical evidence, it was submitted that there was a clear causal link between the offence committed by the Accused and the eventual death of the deceased.^{[note: 99]} In PP v Hue An Li [2014] 4 SLR 661 (“Hue An Li”), the High Court noted the inherent tension between the control principle and the outcome materiality principle and ultimately decided that the outcome materiality principle trumps the control principle. The Prosecution therefore urged the Court to similarly consider the outcome of the present case in determining the sentence for the s 323 Penal Code charge.^{[note: 100]} The Prosecution argued that while the death of the deceased was not intended or foreseen by the Accused, it was nonetheless a direct result of the Accused’s actions.^{[note: 101]}

87 The Prosecution also drew the court’s attention to the case of Koh Jing Kwang v PP [2014] SGHC 213 where the victim had sustained a skull fracture. The case would therefore have fallen within Band 3 of the sentencing framework. However, the offender was sentenced to 12 weeks’ imprisonment due to his significantly reduced culpability. The Prosecution thus argued that the sentence meted out to the Accused should not be any lower than 12 weeks’ imprisonment, given that the victim in Koh Jing Kwang did not die.^{[note: 102]}

88 With regard to the offence under s 204A of the Penal Code, the Prosecution conceded that there was a lack of sentencing precedents that are directly on point. Nonetheless, the Prosecution pointed out that the facts of the present case would be most analogous to the case of PP v Muhammad Nur Fatwa Bin Mahmood (unreported) (“Muhammad Nur Fatwa”).^{[note: 103]} In that case, the offender had pushed the deceased into a well. While waiting for the Police to arrive, the offender told his colleague to delete a video of the incident. The colleague did so accordingly, but the video was subsequently retrieved. The offender pleaded guilty to the charge under s 204A read with s 109 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to four weeks’ imprisonment.

89 Similar to Mohammad Nur Fatwa, the Prosecution noted that the Accused’s attempt at obstructing justice was done after the Accused knew that the deceased was in an unconscious state, and that the Police were making enquiries as to what had happened. Given that the Accused was convicted of the s 204A charge read with s 511 of the Penal Code which has a lower prescribed punishment, the Prosecution argued for the sentence to be adjusted downwards to 2 weeks’ imprisonment.^{[note: 104]}

90 Lastly, the Prosecution also submitted that both sentences should be ordered to run consecutively as the two offences violated different legally protected interests. Furthermore, the imposition of consecutive sentences would be appropriate to reflect the increased culpability of the Accused.^{[note: 105]} As such, the Prosecution submitted that the Accused should be sentenced to a global imprisonment term of 14 weeks.^{[note: 106]}

Mitigation Plea

91 The Defence in their written mitigation plea referred to the Accused’s medical condition. Based on the IMH report dated 29 August 2017 prepared by Dr Kenneth Koh (Exhibit D3), the Defence highlighted that the Accused was “not in the pink of health”. Even though the IMH report stated that her depression was in remission, the Accused’s Borderline Personality Disorder persisted.^{[note: 107]}

92 The Defence also highlighted several factors for the Court’s consideration. For instance, the Accused had volunteered to settle the issue against the two individuals who had made allegations of theft against the deceased. The Accused had gone to the ATM to withdraw money for the two individuals.^{[note: 108]} According to the evidence given by Mdm Sarada, the deceased had used abusive language and vulgarities towards the Accused which had, to a certain extent, provoked the Accused.^{[note: 109]}

93 The Defence also submitted on the appropriate sentence to be imposed. Applying the sentencing framework in Low Song Chye, the Defence submitted that the harm and culpability were low^{[note: 110]} and the case accordingly fell within Band 1.^{[note: 111]} The Defence argued that the harm should be on the low side as the Accused had inflicted a slap and there was a single push. The culpability of the Accused should also be low as the Accused could not have reasonably foreseen the consequence that had resulted.^{[note: 112]} It was also submitted that there were elements of abuse or use of vulgar language on the Accused by the deceased.^{[note: 113]}

94 The Defence further cited the case of PP v Cheng Tai Peng [2012] SGDC 121 (“Cheng Tai Peng”) where the elderly victim was slapped, punched and kicked numerous times over a period. The victim suffered a perforation of the left ear drum, a hematoma over the left cartilaginous portion of his left ear, some rectinal bleeding and abrasions. In that case, the offender claimed trial and was sentenced to 10 weeks’ imprisonment. The Defence argued that as compared to Cheng Tai Peng, there was no premeditation in the present case, there were no injuries, and if at all the altercation only lasted a short while.^{[note: 114]}

95 In relation to the s 204A charge, the Defence citied the case of Seah Hock Thiam v PP [2013] SGHC 136 (“Seah Hock Thiam”) where the offender was charged with two charges under s 204A read with s 109 of the Penal Code. In that case, the Traffic Police had served a request for the personal particulars on two parties in relation to parking offences that were committed. The offender had brought in two other parties who were not the real offenders of the parking offences to assume the criminal liability of the real offenders. The offender of the s 204A charge read with s 109 of the Penal Code was originally convicted and sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment on each charge. On appeal, the High Court reduced the sentence to one week’s imprisonment. The Defence argued that the present case had similar sentencing parameters and as such, a sentence of one week’s imprisonment should be imposed for the s 204A charge.^{[note: 115]}

96 The Defence also submitted that the two offences were linked to each other in place and time.^{[note: 116]} Citing the case of Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v PP [2014] 2 SLR 998 (“Mohamed Shouffee”), the Defence submitted that concurrent sentences should be ordered.^{[note: 117]}

97 The Defence further sought a backdating of the sentence as the Accused was remanded at the IMH from 12 August to 31 August 2017. I note here that the Prosecution had submitted orally, quite rightly, that it had no objections for the period of remand to be taken into consideration in the final sentence.^{[note: 118]} The Defence submitted that a global sentence of 8 weeks’ imprisonment should be accordingly imposed.^{[note: 119]}

Reasons for Sentence

98 I shall first deal with the s 323 Penal Code charge. The guideline judgement is found in the High Court case of Low Song Chye which sets out the sentencing framework in relation to s 323 offences. The High Court held that in sentencing an offender under s 323 of the Penal Code, a two-step inquiry should be undertaken:

(a) First, the court should identify the sentencing band and where the particular case falls within the applicable indicative sentencing range by considering the hurt caused by the offence. This would allow the court to derive the appropriate indicative starting point.

(b) Next, the court should make the necessary adjustments to the indicative starting point sentence based on its assessment of the offender’s culpability as well as all other relevant factors. This may take the eventual sentence out of the applicable indicative sentencing range.

99 I note that the present case was an unfortunate incident between two neighbours who were generally friendly and helpful to each other. At the same time a life had been tragically lost, as the victim had succumbed to his injuries. As such, I accepted the Prosecution’s position that the present case would fall within Band 3 at the first step of the sentencing inquiry. In Hue An Li, the High Court explained why the outcome materiality principle should prevail over the control principle, albeit in the context of criminal negligence. One of the reasons provided was that legal luck could operative in favour of a putative offender, and if allowed to take the benefit of legal luck operating in their favour if adverse consequences do not eventuate, then it is only fair that an offender should not be heard to raise the control principle as a shield when a harmful outcome does eventuate. The thin skull rule cannot be ignored: Hue An Li at [74] to [75]. On the facts, even though the Accused may not have foreseen the consequences of her pushing the deceased, there was no reasonable doubt based on the findings I have made, that it was the push by the Accused which resulted in the fall of the deceased and consequentially his fatal head injuries.

100 I turn to the second step of the sentencing inquiry. Here, I found the case of Koh Jing Kwang to be a relevant precedent. In Low Song Chye, See J noted that Koh Jing Kwang was a case which would have fallen within Band 3 given that the victim had sustained a skull fracture. On appeal, See J imposed a sentence of 12 weeks’ imprisonment, which would be outside the indicative sentencing range for Band 3, due to the significantly lower culpability of the offender who could not be held to account for the full extent of the consequences suffered by the victim: Low Seng Chye at [87]. In Koh Jing Kwang, See J also considered that the hurt caused should be viewed in the context of an altercation, and that the appellant had thrown a single punch at the victim in a vulnerable region. The appellant was also a first-time offender and the offence was committed very much in the heat of the moment: Koh Jing Kwang at [61]. Despite this, See J observed that in view of the severity of the injuries suffered by the victim, the sentence must reflect the moral culpability of the appellant even though he cannot be held to account for the full extent of the unfortunate circumstances that befell the victim: Koh Jing Kwang at [62].

101 For completeness, I should add that I did not find the case of Cheng Tai Peng cited by the Defence to be of any particular relevance to this case. As explained in Low Song Chye at [84], Cheng Tai Peng was a case that fell within Band 2 of the sentencing framework. In contrast, the case of Koh Jing Kwang bore great similarities to the circumstances of the present case, where a single act of pushing the deceased had eventually resulted in the death of the victim. However, I am mindful that the offence was committed within the context of the deceased having uttered vulgarities at a female neighbour and which indubitably triggered the Accused to slap and push the deceased. In my view, this was a factor which reduced somewhat the culpability of the Accused.

102 On balance, having considered all the facts and circumstances surrounding the s 323 Penal Code charge, I was of the view that a fair and proportionate sentence would be a sentence of an imprisonment term of 11 weeks. As agreed by the parties and as explained in my oral sentencing verdict, the computation of the 11 weeks imprisonment period should take into consideration the period of remand served by the Accused from 12 August 2017 to 31 August 2017.^{[note: 120]}

103 As for the s 204A charge, the sentencing philosophy underpinning such offences would be that of general deterrence. Offences under s 204A of the Penal Code are offences against the institutions of justice and which inevitably contaminate the rule of law. For this reason, the “default” starting sentence for an offence under s 204A of the Penal Code should be a custodial one: Sentencing Practice in the Subordinate Courts (LexisNexis, 3rd Edition, 2013) at pg 1080.

104 At the outset, I should observe that the case of Seah Hock Thiam cited by the Defence may be distinguished. In that case, the High Court sentenced the appellant to one week’s imprisonment for each charge under s 204A read with s 109 of the Penal Code. However, it must be noted that in Seah Hock Thiam, the predicate offences were parking offences which were relatively minor, as compared to the s 323 Penal Code offence in the present case which had also led to the death of the victim. The Accused had sought to obstruct the course of justice by attempting to interfere with the evidence of Mdm Sarada who was the only other person to have actually witnessed the entire incident. This must be seen as a more severe act and one meriting a higher sentence than that imposed in Seah Hock Thiam.

105 As for the Muhammad Nur Fatwa case, the offender in that case pleaded guilty to an offence under s 304A(a) of the Penal Code for doing a rash act not amounting to culpable homicide, by pushing the victim into a 12-metre-deep pump well, causing the victim to suffer death by drowning. The offender also pleaded guilty to a separate charge under s 204A Penal Code for abetting his colleague to delete a video of the incident which recorded the pushing of the victim into the well. The victim passed away. The offender was sentenced to four weeks’ imprisonment for the s 204A charge.

106 The present case was similar to the case in Muhammad Nur Fatwa in that the Accused had interfered with material evidence relevant to criminal investigations of the underlying offence. However, given that the charge proceeded against the Accused was one of attempt to obstruct the course of justice read with s 511 of the Penal Code, I found that a sentence of two weeks’ imprisonment would be fair and appropriate to reflect the overall culpability of the Accused.

107 In terms of the global sentence to be imposed, I was of the view that both sentences should run consecutively. The Defence was entitled to highlight the one-transaction rule, which states that where two or more offences are committed in the course of a single transaction, all sentences in respect of those offences should be concurrent rather than consecutive. However, the one-transaction rule is not an inflexible or rigid rule, but merely serves as a filter to sieve out those sentences that ought not as a general rule to be ordered to be run consecutively: Mohamed Shouffee at [27]. The High Court had further explained that the real basis of the one-transaction rule is the unity of the violated interest that underlies the various offences: Mohamed Shouffee at [31]. In the present case, the legally protected interests for the s 323 Penal Code charge and the s 204A Penal Code charge are clearly distinct. For that reason, both the sentences in my view, should run consecutively.

108 I did not give much mitigating weight to the Defence’s argument that the Accused was in poor mental condition. The IMH report prepared by Dr Kenneth Koh had stated that the Accused was in remission of her depression at the material time of the offence. The IMH report also noted that the Accused was not of unsound mind at the time of the alleged offences.^{[note: 121]} In the absence of any evidence which established that the Accused’s Borderline Personality Disorder had a causal link to the commission of the offence, there was little room, if any, for a sentencing discount to be properly given. I also noted that the Accused, regrettably, did not display any sign of remorse during the course of the entire trial.

109 For all of the above reasons and having considered all the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case, I was of the view that a global sentence of 13 weeks’ imprisonment would serve the ends of justice in the present case. As mentioned above in relation to the sentence imposed for the s 323 Penal Code charge, the computation by Singapore Prisons of the total imprisonment term to be served by the Accused should also take into consideration the period of remand served by the Accused from 12 August 2017 to 31 August 2017.^{[note: 122]}[Context] [Hide Context]

^{[note: 1]}Transcript Day 1, Page 48 Lines 2 to 18.

^{[note: 2]}Transcript Day 1, Page 54 Lines 15 to 31.

^{[note: 3]}Transcript Day 1, Page 54 Line 32 to Page 55 Line 10.

^{[note: 4]}Transcript Day 1, Page 57 Lines 23 to 32.

^{[note: 5]}Transcript Day 2, Page 17 Line 8 to Page 18 Line 1.

^{[note: 6]}Transcript Day 1, Page 69 Lines 16 to 30.

^{[note: 7]}Transcript Day 3, Page 7 Lines 14 to 26.

^{[note: 8]}Transcript Day 3, Page 8 Lines 1 to 3.

^{[note: 9]}Transcript Day 3, Page 12 Line 18 to Page 13 Line 10.

^{[note: 10]}Transcript Day 3, Page 13 Lines 17 to 21.

^{[note: 11]}Transcript Day 3, Page 15 Line 17 to Page 16 Line 19.

^{[note: 12]}Transcript Day 3, Page 18 Line 30 to Page 19 Line 5.

^{[note: 13]}Transcript Day 3, Page 19 Line 21 to Page 20 Line 16.

^{[note: 14]}Transcript Day 3, Page 20 Lines 17 to 26.

^{[note: 15]}Transcript Day 1, Page 72 Line 6 to Page 73 Line 11.

^{[note: 16]}Transcript Day 1, Page 76 Line 23 to Page 78 Line 15.

^{[note: 17]}Transcript Day 1, Page 78 Lines 17 to 28.

^{[note: 18]}Transcript Day 3, Page 21 Lines 20 to 21.

^{[note: 19]}Transcript Day 3, Page 21 Lines 23 to 32.

^{[note: 20]}Transcript Day 3, Page 22 Lines 3 to 26.

^{[note: 21]}Transcript Day 1, Page 79 Line 15 to Page 80 Line 24.

^{[note: 22]}Transcript Day 2, Page 26 Lines 20 to 28.

^{[note: 23]}Transcript Day 1, Page 83 Line 13 to Page 84 Line 18.

^{[note: 24]}Transcript Day 3, Page 26 Line 28 to Page 27 Line 25.

^{[note: 25]}Transcript Day 7, Page 5 Lines 3 to 13.

^{[note: 26]}Transcript Day 7, Page 5 Lines 14 to 23.

^{[note: 27]}Transcript Day 7, Page 7 Lines 12 to 16.

^{[note: 28]}Transcript Day 7, Page 7 Line 17 to Page 8 Line 18.

^{[note: 29]}Transcript Day 7, Page 5 Line 31 to Page 7 Line 11.

^{[note: 30]}Transcript Day 3, Page 103 Lines 6 to 20.

^{[note: 31]}Transcript Day 3, Page 105 Lines 4 to 17.

^{[note: 32]}Transcript Day 4, Page 13 Lines 7 to 13.

^{[note: 33]}Transcript Day 3, Page 106 Lines 3 to 25.

^{[note: 34]}Transcript Day 4, Page 14 Lines 10 to 15.

^{[note: 35]}Transcript Day 4, Page 50 Lines 2 to 4.

^{[note: 36]}Transcript Day 4, Page 51 Lines 28 to 30.

^{[note: 37]}Transcript Day 4, Page 57 Lines 21 to 23.

^{[note: 38]}Transcript Day 4, Page 58 Lines 4 to 11.

^{[note: 39]}Transcript Day 4, Page 58 Line 22 to Page 60 Line 24.

^{[note: 40]}Transcript Day 4, Page 65 Line 6 to Page 66 Line 10.

^{[note: 41]}Transcript Day 6, Page 7 Lines 15 to 27.

^{[note: 42]}Transcript Day 6, Page 9 Line 15 to Page 10 Line 27.

^{[note: 43]}Transcript Day 6, Page 11 Line 15 to Page 12 Line 8.

^{[note: 44]}Transcript Day 6, Page 12 Lines 6 to 8.

^{[note: 45]}Transcript Day 6, Page 4 Lines 13 to 32.

^{[note: 46]}Transcript Day 6, Page 39 Line 7 to Page 41 Line 6.

^{[note: 47]}Transcript Day 6, Page 41 Lines 12 to 20.

^{[note: 48]}Transcript Day 6, Page 42 Lines 20 to 31.

^{[note: 49]}Transcript Day 6, Page 46 Lines 9 to 25.

^{[note: 50]}Transcript Day 6, Page 47 Lines 14 to 25.

^{[note: 51]}Transcript Day 6, Page 48 Line 32 to Page 49 Line 2.

^{[note: 52]}Transcript Day 1, Page 39 Lines 15 to 21.

^{[note: 53]}Transcript Day 5, Page 3 Lines 7 to 21.

^{[note: 54]}Transcript Day 5, Page 4 Lines 3 to 14.

^{[note: 55]}Transcript Day 5, Page 4 Lines 15 to 19.

^{[note: 56]}Transcript Day 5, Page 4 Line 23 to Page 6 Line 24.

^{[note: 57]}Transcript Day 5, Page 8 Lines 13 to 20.

^{[note: 58]}Transcript Day 5, Page 8 Lines 21 to 23.

^{[note: 59]}Transcript Day 5, Page 9 Lines 29 to 32.

^{[note: 60]}Transcript Day 5, Page 12 Line 23 to Page 13 Line 9.

^{[note: 61]}Transcript Day 7, Page 17 Lines 11 to 16.

^{[note: 62]}Transcript Day 7, Page 17 Line 20 to Page 19 Line 4.

^{[note: 63]}Transcript Day 7, Page 19 Lines 12 to 25.

^{[note: 64]}Transcript Day 7, Page 19 Lines 26 to 32.

^{[note: 65]}Transcript Day 7, Page 20 Lines 1 to 22.

^{[note: 66]}Transcript Day 9, Page 17 Line 6 to Page 20 Line 15.

^{[note: 67]}Transcript Day 9, Page 20 Lines 16 to 27.

^{[note: 68]}Transcript Day 9, Page 21 Lines 5 to 12.

^{[note: 69]}Transcript Day 9, Page 21 Line 19 to Page 23 Line 19.

^{[note: 70]}Transcript Day 9, Page 23 Line 23 to Page 24 Line 22.

^{[note: 71]}Transcript Day 8, Page 1 Line 23 – Page 2 Line 20.

^{[note: 72]}Transcript Day 8, Page 5 Lines 7 to 24.

^{[note: 73]}Transcript Day 8, Page 6 Line 27 to Page 7 Line 17.

^{[note: 74]}Transcript Day 8, Page 9 Lines 1 to 14.

^{[note: 75]}Transcript Day 8, Page 9 Line 24 to Page 12 Line 23.

^{[note: 76]}Transcript Day 8, Page 14 Lines 13 to 27.

^{[note: 77]}Transcript Day 8, Page 15 Lines 10 to 27.

^{[note: 78]}Transcript Day 8, Page 16 Lines 3 to 7.

^{[note: 79]}Transcript Day 8, Page 16 Lines 21 to 27.

^{[note: 80]}Transcript Day 8, Page 18 Lines 4 to 24.

^{[note: 81]}Transcript Day 8, Page 19 Lines 10 to 13.

^{[note: 82]}Transcript Day 2, Page 65 Lines 27 to 30.

^{[note: 83]}Transcript Day 2, Page 57 Lines 5 to 12.

^{[note: 84]}Transcript Day 8, Page 64 Line 12 to Page 65 Line 24.

^{[note: 85]}Exhibit D1, at paragraph [9] – [10].

^{[note: 86]}Transcript Day 8, Page 58 Lines 6 to 10.

^{[note: 87]}Transcript Day 8, Page 58 Lines 26 to 30.

^{[note: 88]}Transcript Day 8, Page 59 Line 3.

^{[note: 89]}Transcript Day 8, Page 59 Lines 16 to 18.

^{[note: 90]}Transcript Day 8, Page 59 Lines 19 to 20.

^{[note: 91]}Transcript Day 8, Page 59 Lines 21 to 24.

^{[note: 92]}Transcript Day 8, Page 43 Lines 11 to 24.

^{[note: 93]}Transcript Day 8, Page 62 Lines 9 to 12.

^{[note: 94]}Transcript Day 8, Page 63 Lines 4 to 6.

^{[note: 95]}Transcript Day 8, Page 63 Lines 24 to 26.

^{[note: 96]}Exhibit D3 at [9].

^{[note: 97]}Prosecution’s Skeletal Submissions on Sentence at [2].

^{[note: 98]}Prosecution’s Skeletal Submissions on Sentence at [5].

^{[note: 99]}Prosecution’s Skeletal Submissions on Sentence at [6].

^{[note: 100]}Prosecution’s Skeletal Submissions on Sentence at [7].

^{[note: 101]}Prosecution’s Skeletal Submissions on Sentence at [7].

^{[note: 102]}Prosecution’s Skeletal Submissions on Sentence at [9].

^{[note: 103]}Prosecution’s Skeletal Submissions on Sentence at [14].

^{[note: 104]}Prosecution’s Skeletal Submissions on Sentence at [15].

^{[note: 105]}Prosecution’s Skeletal Submissions on Sentence at [16].

^{[note: 106]}Prosecution’s Skeletal Submissions on Sentence at [17].

^{[note: 107]}Defence’s Reply to Address on Sentence at [47].

^{[note: 108]}Plea-in-mitigation at [9].

^{[note: 109]}Plea-in-mitigation at [14].

^{[note: 110]}Defence’s Reply to Address on Sentence at [6] and [24].

^{[note: 111]}Defence’s Reply to Address on Sentence at [24].

^{[note: 112]}Defence’s Reply to Address on Sentence at [10].

^{[note: 113]}Defence’s Reply to Address on Sentence at [12].

^{[note: 114]}Defence’s Reply to Address on Sentence at [9].

^{[note: 115]}Defence’s Reply to Address on Sentence at [33] to [37].

^{[note: 116]}Defence’s Reply to Address on Sentence at [41].

^{[note: 117]}Defence’s Reply to Address on Sentence at [42] to [43].

^{[note: 118]}Transcript Day 14, Page 1 Line 25 to Page 2 Line 3.

^{[note: 119]}Defence’s Reply to Address on Sentence at [40].

^{[note: 120]}Transcript Day 14, Page 6 Lines 5 to 17.

^{[note: 121]}Exhibit D3 at [10].

^{[note: 122]}Transcript Day 14, Page 6 Lines 5 to 17.