Lexus driver bang cyclist, drag bycycle for 2km, fine $2500..

[Limsgp]

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?

 

[alantkh]

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??

really.... i have seen cyclists coming from opposite direction of traffic and zooming out all of a sudden a couple of times while in a cab. and even with the light turn green for vehicle,they want to make a dash for it...most of the time..never mind if they are locals or foreigners...unless we are in the actual situation,it is hard to understand. recently i even see ppl cycling on the highway when vehicles are moving at high speed...is that even allow?

i have even seen a motorbike out of convenience,riding in opposite direction for at least 200m to get to a turn for him, and then there wwas a few near hit/miss...i am not saying the lexus driver is right and the person that got hit was wrong...but there are many possibilities.

there are bad drivers just like there are bad cyclist. some cyclist cycle like they think they are driving a tank,even if kanna hit also won't die......

 

[alantkh]

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?

I am not a lawyer but I think that is WRONG. The public prosecutor is SUPPOSED to get the "just" sentence for the "public interest. nothing to do with the victim.


http://www.lawnet.com.sg/legal/ln2/comm/HTML/Subordinate/51601.htm

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 [1999] 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):

 

[iMac08]

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..

 

[yqt]

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??

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 :angry:

 

[Limsgp]

I am not a lawyer but I think that is WRONG. The public prosecutor is SUPPOSED to get the "just" sentence for the "public interest. nothing to do with the victim.

I guess you missed my point completely.

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.

 

[night86mare]

What argument? I got argue meh? :dunno::bsmilie:

i don't care, i will insist that you argue and you have put forth a....

STRAWMAN ARGUMENT :bsmilie:

 

[arctos]

i don't care, i will insist that you argue and you have put forth a....

STRAWMAN ARGUMENT :bsmilie:

Tsk tsk... don't derail the thread like what happened to this: http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/s...led_along_bukit_timah_with_no_casualties.html :sweat:

Business as usual for everyone. *walks away*

 

[brapodam]

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?

 

[Gizmore]

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??

Agree.

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.

 

[night86mare]

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?

because you can't really sound even vaguely intelligent if you tell people they are using a stickman or snowman argument. :bsmilie:

 

[alantkh]

I guess you missed my point completely.

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.

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.

we can vote.

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.

 

[NMSS_2]

it's idiosyncrasies. :bsmilie:

yes, the world is full of idiosyncrasies, but that doesn't really lead to the eventual conclusion that it's doomed. :bsmilie:

did you look up the definition of the word? :bsmilie:

How come i didnt know that i deliberately misspelled the word? Whoa! and i need the person that i have worded for to tell me that!

Black chicken fallacy! Whatever that is! :bsmilie:

 

[NMSS_2]

here, this goes beyond cycling on the road with other vehicle users. the cyclist was also cycling in the middle of the road. i think anyone here who has driven in singapore would agree with me that that's a bad idea from anyone's point of view. :dunno:

Please tell me exactly, why is it wrong or it is a bad idea? i dont have the faintest idea/clue from the vague answer.

 

[Limsgp]

we can vote.

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.

I support you if there's any avenue to express our disappointment about how the prosecution handled the case..

 

[night86mare]

How come i didnt know that i deliberately misspelled the word? Whoa! and i need the person that i have worded for to tell me that!

:bsmilie::bsmilie::bsmilie:

oh dear me. :bsmilie:

 

[night86mare]

Please tell me exactly, why is it wrong or it is a bad idea? i dont have the faintest idea/clue from the vague answer.

Quotation of:

"the social status of the accused is my primary concern as it gives the public the FALSE idea that people can pay to get themselves out of trouble"

and:

"the social status of the accused is my primary concern"

are entirely two different things. One is the false impression and another is the actual social status.

stop trying to trick me into saying something entirely different!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :angry::bsmilie::bsmilie:

 

[NMSS_2]

stop trying to trick me into saying something entirely different!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :angry::bsmilie::bsmilie:

are you reading correctly? see http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6672184&postcount=98

your black chicken again?:sweat:

 

[night86mare]

are you reading correctly? see http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6672184&postcount=98

your black chicken again?

:bsmilie::bsmilie:

totally missed the point.... as usual.

:bsmilie::bsmilie:

ok la, don't play with you already. is not very nice. bye! :bsmilie:

 

[alantkh]

So sad.

The results of the appeal is out.

http://motoring.asiaone.com/Motoring/News/Story/A1Story20101119-248066.html

No jail for driver who hit cyclist and didn't stop

By Chong Shin Yen

SHE was fined $800 for failing to help a cyclist she had hit.

The prosecution appealed to the High Court, asking for the driver, Cleopatra Wong Yuin Ping, 30, to be given a jail term instead.

But Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin dismissed the appeal.

Wong had earlier said that when she heard the impact, she thought it was a rotten tree branch that had fallen on the car.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Christopher Ong said yesterday that imprisonment "was the norm" for those who had failed to render assistance after an accident.

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.

Related:


She thought cyclist was a tree branch
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.

Quit teaching

Wong was a teacher at the time of the accident but she has since quit.

She was driving her father's Lexus ES300 when she rammed into a cyclist along Holland Road around 5.15am on Oct 19, 2008.

The impact caused the cyclist, Mr Muhammad Asri Aris, 19, to be flung onto the windscreen before landing on the left side of the road. The windscreen was cracked as a result.

Wong heard a bang and looked in that direction. But thinking that it was a rotten tree branch that had fallen, she did not stop and continued driving home.

She was also unaware that the victim's bicycle was stuck in the undercarriage of the car.

The bicycle was dragged for about 2km, until the junction of Holland Road and Leedon Road, before it was dislodged.

Mr Muhammad Asri was warded for two days with a fractured left shoulder, a cut on his forehead and multiple abrasions.

He was also given medical leave for about a month.

Wong had earlier gone to Zouk to look for her cousin, who had not returned home. Her cousin was staying with her family then.

In her mitigation, Wong said that she heard some sounds at the rear but because the sound-proofing of the Lexus was so good, she thought that the sounds were caused by the tree branch.

In sentencing Wong in August, the District Judge had said it was possible that the shadows from the canopy of trees would have had an impact on Wong's line of sight, resulting in her mistaken assumption about the "object" that struck her windscreen.

Wong had said that she was travelling at 60kmh at the time.