When someone shares with you something of value, you have an obligation to share it with others.
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
Questions for Justice Choo Han Teck in the sentencing of Shin Min editor Lim Hong Eng
A strange series of events unfolded in the courtroom of Justice Choo, just the other day. Justice Choo was hearing the appeal of the hit and run killer driver Ms.. Lim Hong Eng.
Questions for Justice Choo Han Teck in the sentencing of Shin Min editor Lim Hong Eng
Joe Seck 23 April 2009
A strange series of events unfolded in the courtroom of Justice Choo, just the other day. Justice Choo was hearing the appeal of the hit and run killer driver Ms.. Lim Hong Eng.
For those of us who are unaware, Ms.. Lim is the Executive Editor of the Shin Ming Daily News. As with all mass media publications in Singapore, Editor positions are only given to politically connected and pliant supporters of the PAP.
Ms. Lim had been sentenced to a jail term of 1 1/2 years by a lower court for negligently driving while using her hand phone, and subsequently running a red light and striking a motorcyclist and his passenger. The passenger died, while the motorcyclist suffered serious injuries.
Justice Choo decided to uphold the lower court’s conviction, but reduce the sentence. Ms.. Lim’s lawyer, the brilliant Subhas Anandan of Khattar Wong Law Firm suggested a “high fine”, instead of jail time. Justice Choo apparently agreed and change the sentence to 1 day’s jail and a fine totalling $12,000 over the 2 charges.
It was only discovered later by Mr. Anandan and the prosecutor that on the second charge of which a $10,000 fine had been levied, the statute in that particular law had no provisions for a fine, it only had provisions for a jail term.
Justice Choo had no choice but to remove the $10,000 fine. However, he did not substitute that with any added jail time, claiming that “in the circumstances, it will not be right to increase the custodial sentence to the detriment of the accused.” And he added that this was a one off case and not to be used as a sentencing precedent.
The end result is that Ms.. Lim was jailed for 1 day and fined $2,000, an absurdly light sentence for taking the life of someone through negligence.
Well, my questions are quite simple:
- Why does a High Court Justice not know the law? Surely, he must have sentenced under this statute before? Does he not review all his court cases before hand to see what is allowed under the sentencing guidelines?
-Why is this a one off case? Are not the actions in a Singapore Court of Law applicable to all Singaporeans? How can this be a one off case applicable only to a privileged person like Ms.. Lim? Aren’t the courts supposed to be impartial? Is this a one off because he made a mistake?
- If a fine was not applicable on the second charge, could he not increase the fine or jail time on the first charge, instead of leaving it at $2,000.
- Why did the prosecutor not point out in court at that time that a fine was inappropriate for this statute? After all, is his job not to oppose the appeal of Ms.. Lim?
- Finally, why is Justice Choo referring to Ms.. Lim as the “accused”? Has she not been convicted already? Did he not already uphold the conviction? Since she is convicted, she cannot be an “accused” anymore. She is the “guilty party”. How come Justice Choo cannot differentiate between “accused” and “convicted”. This is totally unacceptable.
1 comment:
Questions for Justice Choo Han Teck in the sentencing of Shin Min editor Lim Hong Eng
Joe Seck
23 April 2009
A strange series of events unfolded in the courtroom of Justice Choo, just the other day. Justice Choo was hearing the appeal of the hit and run killer driver Ms.. Lim Hong Eng.
For those of us who are unaware, Ms.. Lim is the Executive Editor of the Shin Ming Daily News. As with all mass media publications in Singapore, Editor positions are only given to politically connected and pliant supporters of the PAP.
Ms. Lim had been sentenced to a jail term of 1 1/2 years by a lower court for negligently driving while using her hand phone, and subsequently running a red light and striking a motorcyclist and his passenger. The passenger died, while the motorcyclist suffered serious injuries.
Justice Choo decided to uphold the lower court’s conviction, but reduce the sentence. Ms.. Lim’s lawyer, the brilliant Subhas Anandan of Khattar Wong Law Firm suggested a “high fine”, instead of jail time. Justice Choo apparently agreed and change the sentence to 1 day’s jail and a fine totalling $12,000 over the 2 charges.
It was only discovered later by Mr. Anandan and the prosecutor that on the second charge of which a $10,000 fine had been levied, the statute in that particular law had no provisions for a fine, it only had provisions for a jail term.
Justice Choo had no choice but to remove the $10,000 fine. However, he did not substitute that with any added jail time, claiming that “in the circumstances, it will not be right to increase the custodial sentence to the detriment of the accused.” And he added that this was a one off case and not to be used as a sentencing precedent.
The end result is that Ms.. Lim was jailed for 1 day and fined $2,000, an absurdly light sentence for taking the life of someone through negligence.
Well, my questions are quite simple:
- Why does a High Court Justice not know the law? Surely, he must have sentenced under this statute before? Does he not review all his court cases before hand to see what is allowed under the sentencing guidelines?
-Why is this a one off case? Are not the actions in a Singapore Court of Law applicable to all Singaporeans? How can this be a one off case applicable only to a privileged person like Ms.. Lim? Aren’t the courts supposed to be impartial? Is this a one off because he made a mistake?
- If a fine was not applicable on the second charge, could he not increase the fine or jail time on the first charge, instead of leaving it at $2,000.
- Why did the prosecutor not point out in court at that time that a fine was inappropriate for this statute? After all, is his job not to oppose the appeal of Ms.. Lim?
- Finally, why is Justice Choo referring to Ms.. Lim as the “accused”? Has she not been convicted already? Did he not already uphold the conviction? Since she is convicted, she cannot be an “accused” anymore. She is the “guilty party”. How come Justice Choo cannot differentiate between “accused” and “convicted”. This is totally unacceptable.
Post a Comment