In any case, unless the victim stands out and cried out that the sentence is not fair, any 3rd party talk is useless if the victim is not interested to pursue what others would perceive as "just" sentence.
So far, there doesn't seems to be any talk of the victim seeking support to appeal against the sentence?
Guys it is not about whether the cyclist is driving dangerously or not. Neither it is about lexus or suzuki driver...
The point is that it is a HIT AND RUN. The penalty for hit and run must be SEVERE, more so than drink driving. It is about how we want our law to set up to protect the public.
I mean if the penalty for hit and run is $2500, while drink driving is driving ban for X years + fine + jail, who in the world will want to stop and help the injured?
If I run and get sobered, I may get caught or I get away totally scott free. If I get caught, worse come to worse, I invoke the tree branch defense and I get away with a $2500 fine.
Now the big QUESTION is why the verdict is so when everyone who read it feels it is ridiculous. The judge seems to shift the blame to the public prosecutor. Is that true? Can't the judge rule that the public prosecutor is gross incompetent and get another one?
Why is the public prosecutor so lousy? Who paid for that guy??
26. In R v Ball (1951) Cr App R 164 at 165-166, Hillary J stated:
“In deciding the appropriate sentence, a court should always be guided by certain considerations. The first and foremost is the public interest. The criminal law is publicly enforced, not only with the object of punishing crime, but also in the hope of preventing it. A proper sentence, passed in public, serves the public interest in two ways. It might deter others who may be tempted to try crime as seeming to offer easy money on the supposition, that if the offender is caught and brought to justice, the punishment will be negligible.“
27. This passage was quoted by the Chief Justice Yong Pung How in PP v Tan Fook Sum  2 SLR 523, at paragraph 19. The Chief Justice went on to say, at paragraph 20:
“In another sense, the public interest principle often means the protection of the public. For instance, it varies in proportion to the prevalence of the offence in question. Where an offence is prevalent, a more severe sentence may be meted out to mark the court’s disapproval and to acknowledge the seriousness of the offence. Also, the public interest sometimes means quelling the sense of outrage felt by the community; in this sense it is a reformulation of the retribution principle. Perhaps, in the final analysis, the public interest principle can be reduced to this (Tan Yock Lin, Criminal Procedure, Ch XVIII at paras 655-701):
i don't drive. and who knows if it is a genuine ''thought is a branch'' case?
the victim shld come out and speak forth if this is not fair to the victim. maybe there is out of court settlement which is a win win for both..if so...then 2.5k is only a small portion of the compensation..
The public prosecuter is responsible for the prosecution of the offence. The victim have no say on how they prosecute or even if they want to prosecute.
The judge will preside over the case base on what is presented by the prosecutor and the defense. It is not his job to say how the prosecuter is suppose to present as that will mean the judge is not fair and is helping the prosecutor against the defense.
And who paid for the prosecutor? We the tax payer paid for him
I get paid more shooting part time ...... damn, I should find more time to shoot part time
Yes, the prosecutor is "SUPPOSED" to pursue the "Just" sentence.
but in this case, the general opinion seems to be that he or she maybe isn't doing enough.. isn't it?
The public can say that it is not a "fair sentence". but so what? What can you do about it? Can you appeal? in what position are you in to "make noise"? you're not the victim.
Perhaps, by right, if the public feels that court is not giving a fair sentence, there should be an avenue for the public to feedback and the authorities could review. But somehow, there's doesn't appear to be such a mechanism in place.
Let's put it this way.. Say, your sister is ill-treated by your brother-in-law. you can't bear to see your sister suffering at the hands of some "villain". You went to the MP to complain of violence in the household and ask for PPO (just an example). The MP will ask "who are you? are you the victim? No? go away. Ask the victim to come personally". if your sister refuse to see the MP, there is nothing you can do. basically, there are many things that is not within the means of the bystander to do.
in short, you cannot represent someone to complain of injustice. Only the involved parties or those affected are in a position to complain or appeal or "make noise"
however, maybe you can bring the concept of "Public interest" into the picture to ask the prosecutors to fight for heavier sentence. But then.. who will do that? Unless you're someone special.. like maybe the MP or opposition MP who is in a natural position to speak up for "public interest". The courts or police probably wouldn't listen to any "nobody" in the streets regarding complains of prosecutors not doing their job well?
Ok, you can say that the victim is like other "nobody".. but still, the victim is in a more "natural position" to make noise.. as compare to other 3rd parties not privy to the case.
Last edited by Limsgp; 9th November 2010 at 02:23 PM.
Business as usual for everyone. *walks away*
Why are we still arguing over strawman, where did the hate directed toward Cleopatra go? Why is all channeling towards (and between) two people?
Instead of arguing over strawman, how about arguing over stickman or snowman?
Seems like a hit and run accident can be mitigated with a decent story and one will walk away with a fine.
The mitigating factor spelled out by the defender sounds incredulous to me and, the prosecutor did not push further to cast doubt on such weak story.
Also, don't have to blame the judge. The judge act upon the facts of the case presented by the both parties. It is the prosecutor duties to ensure that all angle are covered and reasonable doubts be removed.
The authorities should have press hard for this case right from the start.
I think the attorney general is appointed by the President with the ADVICE from the PM. If out public prosecutors are not up to standard, something can be done about it.
If the public make enough outrage, something may be done too. (see quote by chief justice) Seriously, thanks to newpaper who carried the article we know about this ridiculous case. I just hope newpaper can followup and report on the outcome of the appeal.
I tried my best. I even posted a thread on REACH but nothing came out of it except the regular rants from singaporeans. I am not sure if there is any lawyer here who can track the progress of the case and the outcome of the appeal. I think such cases are public.
Last edited by alantkh; 9th November 2010 at 08:08 PM.
your black chicken again?