Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
  On 20/11/2010 at 11:10 AM, wind30 said:

doesn't the public prosecutor knows this then? What if the evidence presented in the first case is suspect? I think he challenged the evidence during the appeal.

 

"DPP Ong had argued that her fine for that charge was inadequate and that the District Judge should have given her a jail term.

 

He pointed out that in previous similar cases, the sentences have been generally a few weeks' imprisonment.

 

In addition, Wong's claim about how she thought the impact had been caused by a falling tree branch was merely her "bare assertions".

 

But Justice Chao noted that when the case was heard in the District Court, the prosecutor at that time had not raised any objections to Wong's mitigation plea or challenged her assertions."

 

This is a different public prosecutor. So if the first one is crappy, don't tell me the second one is too. After the sentence in the district court I think the PP will be very on the ball.

 

I just don't understand how our legal system works anymore. How is it supposed to be a deterrent and protect the public.

 

Perhaps, the ex-Romanian Diplomat would be laughing if he reads this case.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Posted

Can the victim make use of minority rights ...... start a racial issue , in the 60s, or even now in northern neighbouring states, cleopatra will be beaten like roti prata .....  ;D

Posted
  On 20/11/2010 at 11:40 PM, wind30 said:

Thanks for the insight. Are you legally trained? The main bone of contention is the hit and run charge, not the acciddent. The prosecutor has already established that Cleopetra did hit and run for a fact.

 

I am, unfortunately, indeed "legally trained". 

 

Cleopatra was convicted of hit-and-run.  So no dispute there.  The arguments raised now go to sentence, which is a different issue.

 

  Quote
Now what she is saying is that she did not KNOW she hit somebody. Is the prosecutor required to proof that? The defendant can CLAIMED that she thought it was a tree branch. Is the prosecutor required to proof beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant THINKS otherwise?

 

She raised this in mitigation, when her lawyer made submissions as to the sentence, not as a defence to the offence itself.  The practical difficulty is that matters in mitigation are often raised only after conviction, and not during the police investigations into the offence itself.  So if the police haven't looked into it, the prosecutor standing up in court is not going to have any evidence with which to argue otherwise.

 

  Quote
I mean the prosecutor did present a lot of evidence for BOTH the judges. Cleopetra went to ZOUK and left at 5am.... She hit a cyclist and shattered her window. She dragged the bicycle for 2km in her car.

 

Not a relevant issue.  She went to Zouk.  So?  She wasn't charged with drunk driving, and in any case not everybody who goes to Zouk gets drunk.  She dragged the bike for 2km, but claims she didn't hear it.  Unless the police or CSIs conduct some sort of test with an equivalent Lexus, what do you expect the prosecutor to argue in response?  He has no evidence to the contrary.

 

  Quote
The prosecutor did challenge the ridiculous "tree branch" assertion by defendant in Appeal court but the Judge refused to reconsider it. Why? Shouldn't he review the evidence? Does this mean one strike and the prosecution is out? Then why the APPEAL COURT. It really really doesn't make sense. I though that is the point of the Appeal Court to retry cases where people think there is a mistake. How can the Appeal court base its decision totally on the district court, as it seems in this case.

 

That's the difficulty on appeal.  The appeal court is supposed to review only the evidence already presented at the court below, save in exceptional circumstances where it could admit fresh evidence.  It isn't supposed to be an out-and-out retrial, otherwise judicial resources are used up in hearing every case twice any time a disgruntled party appeals (meaning generally in all cases, not just this case where the prosecution appealed).

 

What's the alternative?  No appeals at all, ever?  Which I'm sure you would disagree with as well. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm somewhat appalled by her light sentence as well, but sometimes the system just works that way.  And I should qualify the above opinion anyway, unless you've actually seen/heard/read everything that came up in the case, it's hard as third parties to be second-guessing what exactly the issues and arugments were.  I can speak from personal observation that what the papers report is not always exactly what was argued, or were the real issues in dispute.  Sometimes because the issues in dispute were just too legalistic.

 

And let's not forget, innocent until proven guilty is the cormerstone of criminal justice.  Sometimes it works in favour of someone whom the masses don't think really deserves it.  But what would you suggest instead?  Referendum on each criminal case?  Online vote?  As one noted legal writer put it, "Hard cases make for bad law".

Posted

Thanks for the view from someone who knows legal stuff.

 

  On 21/11/2010 at 8:37 AM, armoury said:

I am, unfortunately, indeed "legally trained".  

 

Not a relevant issue.  She went to Zouk.  So?  She wasn't charged with drunk driving, and in any case not everybody who goes to Zouk gets drunk.  She dragged the bike for 2km, but claims she didn't hear it.  Unless the police or CSIs conduct some sort of test with an equivalent Lexus, what do you expect the prosecutor to argue in response?  He has no evidence to the contrary.

 

 

So that is the point. Given the evidence presented in the case

 

http://lwb.lawnet.com.sg/legal/lgl/rss/subcourts/11570.html

 

is the judge supposed to make the judgement on whether it is likely that the lady did not know she was dragging a bicycle for 2km?

 

Is the prosecution supposed to challenge on EVERYTHING? ie if the defendent says the sky is green and the prosecution did not challenge it, the court is supposed to take that as a fact? Or can the judge can make a judgement in the light of the evidences + common sense and come to a conclusion that the defendent is lying and the sky is not green?

 

  Quote

Not a relevant issue.  She went to Zouk.  So?  She wasn't charged with drunk driving, and in any case not everybody who goes to Zouk gets drunk.  She dragged the bike for 2km, but claims she didn't hear it.  Unless the police or CSIs conduct some sort of test with an equivalent Lexus, what do you expect the prosecutor to argue in response?  He has no evidence to the contrary.

You are right that the zouk point is irrelevant. But the fact that she dragged a bycycle for 2km and shattered a window is not. She KNOWS she hit SOMETHING BIG enough to shatter her window and DROVE OFF without checking if it is a human. That itself is gross negligence.

 

  Quote

That's the difficulty on appeal.  The appeal court is supposed to review only the evidence already presented at the court below, save in exceptional circumstances where it could admit fresh evidence.  It isn't supposed to be an out-and-out retrial, otherwise judicial resources are used up in hearing every case twice any time a disgruntled party appeals (meaning generally in all cases, not just this case where the prosecution appealed).

 

I think the appeal was for that the sentence for the hit and run is too light. Can the appeal judge in view of the evidence of the district court case come to a conclusion that it is unlikely that the defendent mistook a cyclist for a tree branch?

 

If that is not possible due to legal issue, can the appeal judge increase the sentence based on the fact it is grossly negligent to drive off without stopping to check when you have hit something and that deserves a punishment similar to hit and run? After all, the hit and run law mainly for deterrence so that if you get into an accident or you hit something, you DON'T DRIVE OFF without stopping. Anyone can claim that they have hit a tree branch. What sort of deterrence can we expect from our hit and run law next time.... I think it was our Chief Justice who said the Jail sentence for hit and run was for PUBLIC GOOD as a deterent some years back...

 

BTW, do you have access to the appeal court transcipt like the one I found on lawnet for the district court case? Perhaps that would shed light on why the sentence is like that.

 

I also filed an email via reach.gov.sg. Do you know is there anything more the public can do other than complain in online forums?

 

 

Posted
  On 21/11/2010 at 9:29 AM, wind30 said:

is the judge supposed to make the judgement on whether it is likely that the lady did not know she was dragging a bicycle for 2km?

 

Yes, but at the same time he's supposed go according to the evidence presented.

 

Is the prosecution supposed to challenge on EVERYTHING? ie if the defendent says the sky is green and the prosecution did not challenge it, the court is supposed to take that as a fact? Or can the judge can make a judgement in the light of the evidences + common sense and come to a conclusion that the defendent is lying and the sky is not green?

 

In an adversarial system, yes.  Your example of a green sky is something that, in a sense, we can all agree is wrong, but whether one can hear a bike being dragged for 2km under a Lexus is not something that is within everybody's knowledge.  Hence, evidence is required.  And you would be surprised, what you think is "obvious" is not necessarily so. 

 

  Quote
But the fact that she dragged a bycycle for 2km and shattered a window is not. She KNOWS she hit SOMETHING BIG enough to shatter her window and DROVE OFF without checking if it is a human. That itself is gross negligence.

 

That's why she pleaded guilty and was convicted of a charge of hit-and-run.  "Gross negligence", BTW, is something else entirely.

 

  Quote
I think the appeal was for that the sentence for the hit and run is too light. Can the appeal judge in view of the evidence of the district court case come to a conclusion that it is unlikely that the defendent mistook a cyclist for a tree branch?

 

You are entitled to that opinion.  However, the district judge, and the appeal judge, did not take that view.

 

  Quote
If that is not possible due to legal issue, can the appeal judge increase the sentence based on the fact it is grossly negligent to drive off without stopping to check when you have hit something and that deserves a punishment similar to hit and run? After all, the hit and run law mainly for deterrence so that if you get into an accident or you hit something, you DON'T DRIVE OFF without stopping. Anyone can claim that they have hit a tree branch. What sort of deterrence can we expect from our hit and run law next time.... I think it was our Chief Justice who said the Jail sentence for hit and run was for PUBLIC GOOD as a deterent some years back...

 

He could have, but he didn't.  And that's where the matter ends.  (And BTW, once again "gross negligence" means something else, not really relevant to his case.)

 

  Quote
I also filed an email via reach.gov.sg. Do you know is there anything more the public can do other than complain in online forums?

 

Enter the political process.  Lobby your MP.  Ask that the statute prescribe mandatory jail for hit-and-run cases.  But consider: we already have plenty of laws with mandatory minimum sentences, e.g. six  months' jail for harbouring illegal immigrants, regardless of the circumstances.  Do you really want more?

Posted
  On 21/11/2010 at 11:47 AM, armoury said:

 

That's why she pleaded guilty and was convicted of a charge of hit-and-run.  "Gross negligence", BTW, is something else entirely.

 

You are entitled to that opinion.  However, the district judge, and the appeal judge, did not take that view.

 

He could have, but he didn't.  And that's where the matter ends.  (And BTW, once again "gross negligence" means something else, not really relevant to his case.)

 

Enter the political process.  Lobby your MP.  Ask that the statute prescribe mandatory jail for hit-and-run cases.  But consider: we already have plenty of laws with mandatory minimum sentences, e.g. six  months' jail for harbouring illegal immigrants, regardless of the circumstances.  Do you really want more?

 

sigh. Sometimes I really wonder if I should run for the opposition like the Workers Party. But I never had the courage so what to do....

 

So the District and Appeal judge could have given a harsher sentence but they didn't. And that is where the matter ends. Life sucks sometimes doesn't it.

Posted
  On 21/11/2010 at 12:57 PM, wind30 said:

sigh. Sometimes I really wonder if I should run for the opposition like the Workers Party. But I never had the courage so what to do....

 

So the District and Appeal judge could have given a harsher sentence but they didn't. And that is where the matter ends. Life sucks sometimes doesn't it.

 

well, I hope you become Opposition to serve the people, not like Workers Party but better,  why our current Opposition so indifferent...

 

Anyone here have connection with the District and Appeal judge  ?  Pls let us know why given such a light sentence .....  ???

Posted
  On 21/11/2010 at 1:35 PM, HoSaybo said:

Hmm..... Shouldn't the cyclist sue and claim for damageas well, since the lady could well afford to pay.

 

Of course he can, and no doubt he will.  But it'll all be covered by insurance, and at the end of it all premiums will go up... again...

Posted

              Wong Yuin Ping Cleopatra - 30 yrs old 

 

She was a school teacher at the time of the accident.

She is married and has a son.

she is still breast-feeding her son.

She is residing with her family at 28 Ming Teck Road.

She delivered her first child on 1 December 2009.

After the delivery of her child, she resigned after six years of teaching in order to look after her infant son in December 2009.

She intends to return to teaching from beginning of 2011.

A copy of a testimonial prepared by her former Head of English Department was annexed at reference.

She is a graduate from SIM and holds a Bachelor of Arts (English). She stands before this Court with remorse and pleads with the Court to give her another chance.

 

She has not been driving since the date of the accident. She prays to this Court to impose a fine so that she can return to her job as a teacher. The school has invited her back to teach.

 

Driving her father's 3000 cc Lexus with good soundproofing - SDY 8668 S

 

At 5.13am , She was traveling at 60 km/h ??

 

She had heard a loud bang at the left side of her front windscreen and her attention was immediately drawn to the point. She assumed it must be a rotten branch that had fallen on her windscreen. The window was cracked or shattered from the impact..

 

Posted

she has a serious hearing problem as well as terribly poor eyesight.....

 

and even a layman could not possibly believe that incredulous story of her mitigation......

Posted
  On 22/11/2010 at 8:32 AM, char siew pau said:

Will the result be different if she was not chinese, drove her father's proton saga, jobless and from a low income disfuctional family?

 

I think she probably then cannot hire a good lawyer for sure....

Posted
  On 22/11/2010 at 8:32 AM, char siew pau said:

Will the result be different if she was not chinese, drove her father's proton saga, jobless and from a low income disfuctional family? 

 

I think the police will also arrest her on the spot and tow her and her proton saga away ...  ;D

Posted
  On 22/11/2010 at 8:32 AM, char siew pau said:

Will the result be different if she was not chinese, drove her father's proton saga, jobless and from a low income disfuctional family?

 

Course not! Do you think a Proton is soundproof mah!?

 

LOL!! ;D ;D

Posted
  On 22/11/2010 at 11:51 AM, jimi said:

Course not! Do you think a Proton is soundproof mah!?

 

LOL!! ;D ;D

 

a heavily ICEed Proton with dual 12" subs blasting...even the whole tree fell down right beside the car the driver will still have claim he thought that was his sub... ;D

Posted

Wonder why police went to her house just to Tow the Lexus , didn't look for the driver and never check her breath for alcohol ?  

 

How could anyone believe she drove ( 3000cc Lexus ) at 60 km/h at 5 am , and will the impact be that great to break the side window ??   ???

Posted
  On 22/11/2010 at 11:46 AM, Austrich said:

I think the police will also arrest her on the spot and tow her and her proton saga away ...  ;D

 

That assumes the police are omniscient and omnipresent, which they are not.  And if they were, everybody would be complaining about "big brother is watching".

 

  Quote

Wonder why police went to her house just to Tow the Lexus , didn't look for the driver and never check her breath for alcohol ? 

 

How could anyone believe she drove ( 3000cc Lexus ) at 60 km/h at 5 am , and will the impact be that great to break the side window ??  ???

 

Don't know the details of what happened when the police towed the car, but in any case by then several hours had passed.  For all we know a breathalyzer was in fact administered and the result was 0.0, which is why it is never mentioned.

 

Was it the side window?  I thought it was the windscreen.  In which case even if the car is stationary, a large enough falling object from a high enough height can smash it.  Remember the case of the poor guy killed when a tree fell on his car?

 

If anything, the inconsistent part of her story, personally speaking, is that even if she thought it was a branch, why not step out to check damage to the car anyway?  I personally would have, to also check that there was nothing else on my car that had been damaged.  Of course, as a woman her story could be that she didn't want to stop and step out of her car on a deserted road in the middle of the night, and since the car was still running, she decided to wait till she got home before checking.

Posted

Ya....Since when our police are omniscient and omnipresent  ?   I can only think the TP are everywhere they can book motorists to get their monthly quota .. and don't forget those very hardworking TP standing at the corner of overhead bridges early in the morning ...  ;D

 

Driving 3000cc Lexus at 60 km/h early in the morning ?   The 19 yr old cyclist can easily move at that speed.  So the impact cannot be compared to the Huge Tree that killed the driver at YCK rd... btw, that big tree branch easily weight 500 kg .... and I saw it  -  ;D

 

 

Antecedents and Mitigation

 

5      It was submitted by Counsel that the Accused was driving along Holland Road at 5.00 a.m. She passed the speed camera at the junction of Minden and Holland Road. She was traveling at 60 km/h. She was returning home after unsuccessfully looking for her cousin Charlene Tan.

 

6      Along the stretch of road after the speed camera was a canopy of trees and as she was passing the stretch of road, she heard a loud bang at the left side of her front windscreen, her attention was immediately drawn to the point. She assumed it must be a rotten branch that had fallen on her windscreen. She was then driving in the centre lane. The window was cracked/shattered.

 

 

 

  • 2 months later...
Posted

send a feedback to reach.gov.sg. no reply.

 

I am now trying to message my MP via facebook.

 

She says she will ask her lawyer friends about this case...

 

lets see if anything comes out of it.

 

 

Have anyone done anything?

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...
To Top