Punishments imposed by the Courts

Theft
A man who stole $2 million jewellery from a condominium was jailed for two years. He could have been jailed for up to seven years and fined.

A woman was fined $6,000 for stealing a friend's credit card to buy a watch.

A man masquerading as a Central Narcotics Bureau officer stole money and two mobile phone from a Malaysian man. He was jailed nine months.

Smuggling animals
A man was caught trying to smuggle four puppies into Singapore. He was jailed three months and fined $1,800 for not paying Goods and Services Tax amounting to $120 on the puppies. Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) officers checked his car at the Causeway and found four puppies hidden under his seat. He could have been fined $1,000 and jailed one year for the offence.

Under the Animals and Birds Act, an import licence is required from AVA. After they are imported, the puppies must be vaccinated and quarantined for a period of time depending on their age. Any dog or cat imported from any country except Australia New Zealand Britain and Ireland had to be vaccinated against rabies. It is then quarantined for not less than 30 days upon arrival. This is to safeguard Singapore which has been rabies-free since 1953. Malaysia is not free from the disease and there have been cases of human death there due to rabies.

Forging medical certificates
An employee forged medical certifcates issued by a clinic to support his absence from work. He was jailed for one year after he admitted to three counts of forgery for the purpose of cheating. He had forged the certificates by scanning the documents and reproducing copies on his computer. Fifteen other similar charges were taken into consideration by the Court for sentencing.

Using forged medical certificate
Woman fined a total of $2,000 for two charges of forged medical certificate. She was also sacked from her job.

Running pornographic video shop
A woman was jailed 12 months and fined $170,000 for running a pornographic video shop.

Do you know that those who employ illegal immigrants can expect to be jailed for at least a year. Under the law, they face between six months and two years jail plus a fine. In one case, a man entered Singapore on a four-day social visit pass and was employed in a hawker stall. He was arrested and convicted of overstaying. The hawker was fined $25,000 for employing three workers without valid work permits and jailed for one year.

A contractor who hired an illegal immigrant had his jail term double to a year. The prosecution appealed successfully against the original sentence of six months.

 

Molest
A man was jailed for four weeks for molesting a woman. He squeezed her buttock while swimming near her at Serangoon Swimming Complex.

A man, 46 years old, was sentenced to one year's jail and three strokes of the cane after a one-day trial. He touched the private parts of his customer, a 25-year-old lady while massaging her. He could have been jailed for up to two years.

A 70 year old man with a history of touching women was jailed for four years.

A 45 year old man was sentenced to four weeks' jail after he pleaded guilty to molesting a 11 year old the boy. At 7.15 am, he persuaded the boy to go to his house whene he was on the way to school. His wife and his two teenage children where not at home at that time. He carried the boy, hugged and kissed him on the cheek. At 7.20 am the boy said he had to go to school; the man let the boy go.

Assaulting the spouse
A man who fractured three of his wife's ribs after he saw love bites on her chest was jailed for 13 months. He pleaded guilty to grievously hurting his wife. He also admitted to two other charges of violating personal-protection orders taken out agsint him by his wife and their 10-year-old son. Two other charges of abusing two younger sons aged eight and nine were considered during sentencing.

A man was jailed for two weeks and fined $1000 for breaching a personal protection order. He had a previous conviction for causing hurt pleaded for leniency saying he was remorseful for what he did. He could have been fined up to $2,000 and jailed for up to six months for a first offence of contravening a pro tection order. A second or subsequent offender can be fined up to $5,000 and jailed for up to 12 months. He had threatened to hack his wife with a chopper and later burned her clothes in the kitchen when he came home drunk was sentendced to seven years of preventive detention after he pleaded guilty to criminal intimidation and committing mischief by fire. He also admitted to violating a personal-protection order issued by the court to his wife.

Causing mischief
A woman splashed urine on the front door of a neighbour's apartment and was fined $1,500. She was caught in the act by a closed-circuit television. She could have been jailed for up to two years.

Harbouring illegals
An elderly woman was convicted and sentenced to seven months jail for harbouring a Myanmar overstayer at the end of a two day trial yesterday. She had rented the flat to the Myanmar man at $2,300 a month. When the police raided the flat, 14 immigration offenders were arrested. Police investigations showed that one of the illegals had paid rent to her.

Claims of advance age and illiteracy should not be used as excuses for breaking the law. Landlords who rent out property should check the prospective tenant's original immigration pass or work pass; cross-check the particulars against those in his passport and verify with the employer if he is working in Singapore.

A man serving 18 months for harbouring illegal immigrants (he was convicted of three charges of harbouring illegals) was sentenced to another nine months's jail. He pleaded guilty to one of 15 charges of harbouring illegals at his house. The others were taken into consideration.

Teenage offenders
The Court sentenced a 15-year-old boy to 30 months at the Boys' Home after he pleaded guilty to three charges of causing mischief by fire and three counts of theft. In sentencing him, the court took 14 other charges into consideration. The teen with his 21-year-old brother and a 16-yearold friend had gone on an arson spree in Holland Drive starting 15 fires in all (set fire to a piece of canvas and damaged some fruits outside a shop some time after midnight . In the morning they had gone to the market and set fire to the canvas covering a vegetable staff, damaging four baskets and some plastic bags etc. They sold a radio, broke into a fridge, stole a seat from a motocycle.) The magistrate advised the teen to pick up some skills during his detention at the Boys' Home. The 16-year-old was sent for reformative training for three years. The 21-year old adult was jailed for seven weeks.

Eight teenagers assaulted a 16 year old student. They suspect he was a member of a rival gang. They had earlier pleaded guilty to being members of an unlawful assembly whose common object was to cause hurt to the youth. The judge called for pre-sentence and Reformative Training Centre (RTC) reports on the eight and sentenced them to three years detention at RTC.

A 17 year old youth had sex with his 14 year old girlfirend eight times. The girl gave birth to a baby. The youth pleaded guilty to five charges of having sex with a minor. Six other similar charges were taken into consideration. The judge called for a probation report. He faces a possible five year jail term and a $10,000 fine.

A youth slashed a teenager with a knife and caused him to suffer a 3 cm cut to the liver. He was jailed four years and given 6 strokes of the cane.

Killer-litter
The Housing and Development (Amendment) Act passed in 1986 empowers the HDB to compulsorily acquire a flat or recover a rental flat when the lessee tenant or authorised occupier of the flat is convicted of a killer-litter offence. It can also acquire the flat if the lessee does not comply with its lease conditions. The lessee cannot place any object in the flat or common areas which can create an obstruction or pose a danger to others. Those whose flats are taken back this way cannot buy or rent another HDB flat for five years

click here to read more on Killer-litter

Driving Offences & Mobile
Motorists who use a phone to talk or send messages while driving can be fined up to $1,000 or jailed up to six months or both. Repeat offenders face a max fine of $2,000 or imprisonment of up to a year or both. In addition they will get 12 demerit point s and the phone may be forfeited by the court. The court may also disqualify the offender from driving. The offence comes under section 65B of the Road Traffic Act.

In 2000, over one thousand offenders were caught for talking on a mobile phone while driving. Talking or sending SMS messages while stationary at a traffic-light junction appears acceptable so long as the user hangs up before moving off when the lights turn green. Motorist should make use of handsfree car kits.

Road rage
A cabby who bashed a motorist with a metal rod was jailed for three months. The sentence is less than the benchmark six-month jail sentence for road rage because the CJ took into account the defence lawyer's plea that Ng was not in a "fit state" when he committed the offence. The court heard Ng was depressed at the time of the attack. The maximum penalty for causing hurt with a dangerous weapon is five years jail and a fine or caning. Lee's van hit the rear of Ng's taxi without causing any damage. In a fit of rage, Ng fetched a 1 m-long metal rod from his car boot and hit Lee.

A driver of a Mercedes-Benz stepped out of hs car and punched a school bus driver because the man had honked at him. There was an argument and the motorist punched the bus driver on the forehead and then drove off. He pleaded guilty and was jailed for five weeks for assault. He could have been fined for up to $1,000 and jailed for up to one year.

A motorist was jailed one month. He hit a taxi driver with a wooden pole during a quarrel. He was convicted after a three-day trial. He was originally tried on the more serious charge of causing hurt but at the close of the case the prosecutor amended the charge to one of causing hurt under provocation as the evidence showed that the taxi driver had provoked the motorist by slapping him. The aggravating point was that after the slap, the motorist went to look for a pole and hit the taxi driver with it. The judge noted that violence of this sort should not be tolerated and it was fortuitous the injuries inflicted were not serious. Justice demanded a custodial sentence even though police had not asked for it.

Drunk and dangerous driving
A man driving his four colleagues home after a late-night party rammed into a wall while doing 120 kmh killing a passenger. He was sentensed to five months' jail and was disqualified from driving any vehicle for 10 years. He pleaded guilty and admitted to causing the death through a rash act. Two charges of causing hurt by a rash act and one of causing grievous hurt were taken into consideration during the sentencing. He lost control of his car and it veered to the left of the highway crashing into the railing. He could have been jailed for up to two years.

Preventive detention - drug addicts
A man who had been in drug-rehabilitation centres eight times failed to report for urine tests at a police station. He was jailed for 18 months (9 months jail on each charge, with two terms to run consecutively. Lim could have been fined up to $10,000 and jailed for up to four years on each charge. Once he had been convicted of three or more offences, two sentences had to run consecutively.

He appealed and the CJ increased it to seven years. Lim had a history of convictions for rioting, armed robbery, causing hurt and theft. The CJ exercised his powers under section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code to keep him in prison for as long as possible.

Condominium breached building regulations - who goes to jail
The Management Corporation (MC) of a strata development is a body corporate constituted under the Land Titles (Strata) Act. Its duties, powers and functions are set out in the Act. Among other things the MC has the duty to keep the common property in a state of good repair, convene AGM, keep proper records and books of account, insure the property etc. All the subsidiary propretors are members of the MC. In the event that an offence has been committed under the Act, the liability (if any) of each of the parties

(MC, Managing Agent, council members or subsidiary proprietors) would have to be determined from the cirucumstances of the case. As a matter of legal principle, liability would only arise if a person had failed to exercise reasonable care and diligence in the discharge of a duty for which he had undertaken to perform. A council member who has discharged his duties with due diligence should not have to fear that he would be held personally liable for an offence committed by an MC in its corporate capacity.

By the way - do you know what is passing off?
Nippon Paint introduced its "3-in-1" multi-purpose wall paint in 1995. In 1999, ICI Paint launched a new paint "Supreme 3-in-1". Nippon Paint cried foul and sued ICI for passing off its paint as the original "3-in-1". ICI Paint cans have a colourful and completely distinct and different look and could not be confused with Nippon's. The court dismissed the claim. It held there is nothing inventive, novel or unique in the "3-in-1" expression. It is merely a descriptive term.

Unsafe premises - you can sue the house owner for negligence
A man breathed in toxic gas in a hotel spa and became unconscious. He later vomited blood and lapsed into a coma for a week. He successfully sued the hotel for negligence for the unsafe premises. He also sued the cleaning company for using dangerous substance to clean the spa area.

Negligence. Man fell from a crane. He sued but lost his claim against the employer, a construction company. The judge noted that the platform of the crane where the employee check the oil levels was slippery but the employee should have wiped off the oil himself. His employer was not answerable to him if he did nothing to remove the oil knowing that no one else was going to do it for him. An experienced crane operator should be able to fill up lubricating oil without instruction or supervison. An employer do not have a duty to give instructions on every aspect of an employee's work.

 

Raffleslaw.com

raffleslaw@yahoo.com raffleslaw@hotmail.com