LEO FERNANDO LLC
Join The Team
Join Us
If you share our vision and drive for excellence, we invite you to join us
for internships or training contracts.
© 2025 Leo Fernando LLC Advocates and Solicitors. All Rights Reserved.
LEO FERNANDO LLC
If you share our vision and drive for excellence, we invite you to join us
for internships or training contracts.
© 2025 Leo Fernando LLC Advocates and Solicitors. All Rights Reserved.
A man was cleared yesterday of a charge of hurting his father, who died shortly after.
The court accepted his lawyer’s argument that the only reason he used force on his 54-year-old father that day was to prevent him from further violence.
Yap Kian Cheong, 22, was acquitted without having to give his defence.
Lawyer Peter Fernando explained that Kian Cheong, a factory operator, did not voluntarily cause the death of his father, Mr Yap Chuan Seng alias Yap Ah Lek, at their Jurong West flat.
Counsel admitted that Kian Cheong did cause hurt but only while trying to restrain his father, whom Mr. Fernando described as a violent and aggressive man.
Kian Cheong originally faced a more serious charge of causing his father’s death by a negligent act.
Mr Yap died from lack of oxygen (traumatic asphyxia) on April 1 last year. His violent behaviour during a family squabble earlier that night forced his wife, Madam Choo Kai Huay, Kian Cheong, another son and daughter to hold him down on the living-room floor.
His daughter, Siew Lian, told the court that he demanded to be released but they were afraid to let him go. They lessened their grip on him only when he started gasping for breath.
Mr. Fernando said Mr. Yap “must have been a strong and vigorous man” as it needed four people to subdue him and it “just so happened that (Kian Cheong) held onto (his father’s) neck”.
The charge against him was for hurting his father by continuously pressing his neck.
The neck injuries, Mr Fernando pointed out were not the sole cause of Mr Yap’s death.
Senior Forensic pathologist Professor Chao Tzee Cheng testified on Thursday that compression leading to traumatic asphyxia was caused by more than one person.
He also said that the pressure applied on neck was not sufficient to “constitute strangulation.”
A plumber who, in July last year, was jailed nine years for manslaughter should be a free man next week.
This is because Liew Ah Seng had his sentence reduced to five years after an appeal on Monday. The original sentence was backdated to the day of his arrest on Nov 27, 1984. With this, plus the usual one-third remission, Liew, 24, should have served out his new five-year term by March 26, said his lawyer, Mr. Peter Fernando.
Liew had, during his trial last year, admitted to manslaughter. He had stabbed to death his supervisor at the Raffles City project worksite in Beach Road on March 31, 1984.
Mr. Fernando, arguing the appeal against the sentence passed by a High Court judge, said Liew left the worksite “peacefully” when he resigned that day. Liew later returned to ask if his supervisor, Mr. Koh Bee Ewa, 27, had paid the contribution to his (Liew’s) Central Provident Fund account. When told he had not, Liew said he would sort the matter.
Mr. Fernando added it was Mr. Koh, a Malaysian and partner of Messrs GAG Engineering Services who started the ensuing fight by kicking Liew.
Counsel said Liew clearly had no intention of causing death and had not taken advantage of the situation after stabbing Mr. Koh once with an object he picked up.
A nine-year jail term for a sudden fight in such circumstances was “manifestly excessive”, he said.
‘Taking of life not justified’
Deputy Public Prosecutor Roy Neighbour countered that a life had been lost and the matter leading up to the fight “cannot by any stretch of the imagination justify the taking of a life”.
Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin, presiding with Mr. Justice F. A. Chug and Judicial Commissioner Mr. Chan Sek Keong in the Court of Criminal Appeal, agreed the sentence was excessive.
He said circumstances of the case showed punishment should be “nowhere near the maximum”, which was 10 years. The proper sentence should be five years, he added.
A shopping spree for two “very close” sisters ended tragically.
One is dead and the other will have to “carry the burden of her sister’s death to her own grave”.
Choo Hong Moi, 45, had reversed her car into her sister Ah Keow, 47, that day – May 30, 1984 – severely injuring the older woman.
Madam Choo Ah Keow died in hospital, without recovering consciousness, 2 1⁄2 months’ later.
The tale of the tragedy unfolded in a magistrate’s court yesterday as Hong Moi faced a charge of reversing her car and knocking down her sister before colliding into a parked car and a motorcycle.
She pleaded guilty. Magistrate David Gerald Jeyasegaram, observing that the whole affair must have been a “harrowing and tragic” experience for her, gave her a 12-month conditional discharge.
This means she is essentially free, but she can be hauled up for the May 30, 1984 offense again should she break the law within the next 12 months’.
At about 6pm that day, Hong Moi drove Ah Keow, a shop assistant, to Ah Keow’s home at Cheong Chin Nam Road in Bukit Timah, after a shopping spree.
Ah Keow alighted. Hong Moi reversed the car. While she was doing this, she heard Ah Keow scream. She tried to step on the brake – but hit the accelerator instead.
This caused the car to go on and hit a parked car and motorcycle too.
Ah Keow suffered serious injuries and never recovered.
At first, Hong Moi was accused of a more serious offence, causing her sister’s death by a negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide and colliding into the two parked vehicles.
This was later stepped down to a lesser charge of driving without due care or reasonable consideration, to which she pleaded guilty.
Her lawyer Mr. Peter Fernando told the court that Hong Moi, a mother of a son and two daughters, had been very close to her late sister and family members.
He said that she would “carry the burden of her sister’s death to her own grave”.
The managing director of An-son Piling (S) Pte Ltd, wound up on Thursday, succeeded. in his High Court appeal to quash his three convictions carrying a 30-month jail term.
Goh Chong Ying, 38, was acquitted on all three charges which alleged that:-
Another Anson director Foo See Sun, 39, jointly tried on two of the three charges, was acquitted.
Goh, now jobless, and Foo together still face four other charges of allegedly giving bribes totalling $3,400 to get two HDB clerks-of-work to help them cheat the HDB.
The cases will be heard from March 5 to 9 next. year.
Mr. Justice F.A. Chua on Wednesday found that the trial judge had relied entirely on Mr. Pannirselvam and Mr. Tan’s evidence which had many serious “material inconsistencies, self-contradictions and discrepancies” and should have cast “grave doubts” on their credibility.
The accomplices could not corroborate one another and the documentary exhibits did not support the evidence Mr. Justice Chua ruled.
Goh’s company got the pilling contract in March 1984 and was paid for the lengths of piles driven into the ground. Such calculations were noted daily by the HDB clerk-of-works.
The prosecution alleged that Mr. Pannirselvam was bribed to inflate figures in his records by Goh, who also offered Mr. Tan $25,000 to keep quiet about their cheating the HDB
Goh denied conspiring with Mr. Pannirselvam or offering him bribes. It was Mr. Tan who had tried to extort money from him, he said
Unfair to subject them to another trial, says appeal court
The four policemen who were freed yesterday after winning their appeal against conviction for raping a Thai prostitute, on the ground that the trial judge had not kept an open mind during the trial, will not be tried again on the same charges.
This is because they have already served more than three years in jail and “it would be unfair to subject them again to a long trial”, said Mr. Justice L.P. Thean, who read the 20-page Court of Criminal Appeal judgment.
High Court judge Wahab Ghows, now retired, had in May 1986 convicted the four of gang raping the 21-year-old prostitute in 1985.
The individual sentences of Constable Roseli Amat, 43, Vigilante Corps member Norsham bin Dahari, 21, national service policemen Kambali bin Takiran, 22, and Muhammad Razipbin Fadzillah, 21, ranged from 10 to 14 years and from 10 to 20 strokes of the rotan. The caning was suspended pending the appeal.
The prosecution alleged at the 18-day trial that the four, who were on task force patrol, had raided the prostitute’s room in an uncompleted block of Housing Board flats at about 2 am. She was handcuffed and taken to their car.
She was then driven to a vacant hut off Yishun Avenue 2, where the men allegedly took turns to rape her, Two of them allegedly raped her twice.
Defence of consent
The four all raised the defence of consent. They said the Thai woman had offered them sexual favours in return for her release, being an illegal overstayer here.
The appeal court, comprising Mr. Justice Thean, Mr. Justice F.A. Chua and Judicial Commissioner Chao Hick Tin, found that the trial judge had not given the four accused a fair trial.
Passages in the transcript of the proceedings which they had reviewed, “indicate starkly that the learned judge had pre-determined material issues adversely against the appellants long before they had fully presented their case,’ they said.
The views expressed by the judge during the trial were “far from a couple of isolated imprudent remarks made injudiciously by a trial judge” during a long trial. This case was “much more than that”.
It appeared from remarks made by the trial judge that he had rejected the accused’s version of the events even before the close of the defence case.
He also “appeared to have formed his view” that one of the policemen intended to rape the woman even before he had completed his testimony.
These examples were further compounded by the judge’s view, expressed before the defence had presented their case, that he was convinced from the prostitute’s testimony that she was a truthful witness and had submitted to the men out of fear.
“The learned judge was clearly in error” as he ought not to have come to any definite conclusion on the woman’s credibility purely on her own evidence.
It was, therefore, with “great reluctance” that the appeal court reached the “unavoidable conclusion that the convictions should not be allowed to stand” and accordingly quashed the convictions and sentences.
The sentences the trial judge passed were: Constable Roseli, Amat, 43, was given 14 years and 15 strokes of the rotan, while Vigilante Corps member Norsham Bin Dahari, 21, was jailed 10 years and to be given 10 strokes.
National servicemen policemen Kambali bin Takiran, 22, and Muhammed Razip bin Fadzillah, 21, who had each raped the woman twice, were sentenced to a total of 13 years and 20 strokes, and 12 years and 20 strokes respectively
Details analysed
The four were suspended when they were first charged with the alleged gang rape.
A senior police officer said yesterday the full details of the trial and appeal would have to be analysed before the police force decided on any course of action.
When the court adjourned, many family members of the four were seen weeping with joy. Roseli, a father of three and a policeman for 22 years, managed to hug Mr. Peter Fernando, his counsel, before being led away.
The four men were taken back to Changi Prison to collect their belongings and were released in the afternoon.
Norsham told the press outside the prison gates yesterday afternoon that he was thankful he was free. Roseli left in a car, while the other two declined to be interviewed.
The prosecution can appeal to the Privy Council provided it obtains leave from the Court of Criminal Appeal.
A Pork seller alleged to have threatened a carpark attendant with a rusty knife after she gave him a parking summons, was acquitted by a court on Tuesday.
Tan Kok Huah, 33, who was charged with criminal intimidation, had been issued with the summons by Madam Rabinah binti Urip on Feb 15, 1987, after he had parked his car at the Gay World Amusement Park carpark without displaying a parking coupon.
During his trial at a magistrate’s court in January, Madam Rabinah, 39, had testified that when Tan pointed the knife at her, she was “only momentarily” afraid. But when she saw that it was rusty, she was not so frightened any more “because it would not have penetrated me cleanly”.
In his submission, defence counsel Peter Fernando said there was no evidence to support the allegation, as the knife had not been recovered.
He further argued that Madam Rabinah’s evidence was not believable as it was impossible for a person, whose life was threatened, not to be in great fear.
Instead, Madam Rabinah even had the courage to go up to Tan while he was about to drive off to retrieve the parking summons from him, he said.
Furthermore, she only lodged a police report two hours after the incident, something a person in her position would do immediately.
Rape case man wins appeal; victim’s account incredible, says CJ
By Ben Davidson
A Man sentenced to six years’ jail and 10 strokes of the cane on a rape charge was acquitted by an appeal court yesterday after the testimony of the alleged victim was dismissed as “inherently incredible”.
Allowing former technician Wong Kok Meng’s appeal, Chief Justice Yong Pung How said of the alleged victim’s testimony: “Her detailed description of the events of the evening of May 24, 1986, when taken as a whole, appears to be as inherently incredible as such evidence can possibly be.”
The Chief Justice held that in the first place the trial judge should not have called Wong’s defence as the prosecution had failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offence at the close of its case.
Wong, now 29, was convicted in June 1989 after he was found guilty of raping the 22-year-old woman in the back of a van in Tung Po Avenue, off Yio Chu bang Road, at about 2.30 am on May 25, 1986.
The prosecution’s case was that Wong and the woman, a baby-sitter, knew each other and had gone out on dates until March 1986, when she broke off the relationship because he tried to fondle her.
On May 24, she was with two friends, one of them a man, when Wang appeared and accused her of refusing to go out with him because she had a new boyfriend.
Later that night, Wong chased her down the flight of steps in the block where she lived, caught hold of her on the second level and forced her into the van.
There he subdued her and forced himself on her although she struggled violently, the woman had said.
Mr. Peter Fernando argued Wong’s appeal against conviction in July last year.
Yesterday, Chief Justice Yong delivered a 13-page judgment in which he noted that at the close of the prosecution’s case, there was only the woman’s evidence that sex had taken place.
While her testimony might have been corroborated by her statement to a friend later that same morning, such corroboration standing alone must be weighed against all the other available evidence.
“An allegation of rape is one of the easiest allegations to make, and one of the most difficult to refute, and a conviction which is based merely on a bare corroboration which is then repeated in court as evidence would be unsatisfactory,” the Chief Justice said.
He pointed out that in this case, medical examination conducted on the woman showed that her vagina had multiple old hymenal tears but there were no obvious fresh excoriation.
Also, there was no evidence of sperm. Neither were there seminal stains on the clothing of both Wong and the woman.
Moreover, no seminal stains were found on the pieces of carpet and tissue paper which the police recovered from the scene. The woman had said that they had used the tissue paper to wipe themselves.
The Chief Justice also found that Wong and the woman had not only known each other for some time, but had “clearly been more than mere acquaintances”.
Said the Chief Justice: “The account of the chase down the stairs of her block of flats, when she even went faster on hearing his name; her evidence of the manner in which she was dragged, struggling all the time, from the stairs until she was finally pushed inside the van to be raped; her evidence of the manner in which force was used on her to strip her, when her clothing remained undamaged and bore no sign of forceable removal; all these hardly fitted into any of the conventional accounts of rape which have been committed.”
He also noted that the woman was “sufficiently composed” at the critical moment to tell Wong not to ejaculate into her, “with the result that notwithstanding the stage of excitement he was in, he complied with her request”.
The woman also clearly had not wanted to make a police report after the alleged rape but had to be persuaded to do so by friends.
“But, having finally allowed, herself to be persuaded to do so, she followed up by giving what can only be described as an inherently incredible piece of evidence.”
The Chief Justice noted that eventually, at the close of the trial, the prosecutor himself, Deputy Public Prosecutor Lee Sing Lit, was “reduced” to arguing that, even if the woman might have acquiesced in the act, acquiescence would not amount to consent.
But the fact remained that the woman was clearly in no fear of death or hurt during the time she was inside the van, the Chief Justice said.
Three brothers, who have been detained since 1987 for the alleged murder of their brother-in-law in the infamous “curry murder” case six years ago, are challenging the legality and unlawfulness of their detention.
A special date will be fixed to hear the applications of the three: Ramayah Radhakrishnan, 35; Shanmugam Chandra, 32; and Ramiah Balakrishnsn, 39.
The Minister for Home Affairs, the Attorney-General and the Commissioner for Police have been cited as respondents in the case.
The three were among six family members who were released after the prosecution asked that they be given a discharge not amounting to an acquittal on June 6, 1987 on the murder charge.
The three men were re-arrested shortly after their release.
In March 1987, the six were charged with either murdering or abetting to murder caretaker Ayakanno Marimuthu, 37, at the Orchard Road Presbyterian Church quarters on Dec 12, 1984.
Shanmugam was then the caretaker of the church.
In the murder, the victim was bludgeoned to death with an iron rod, cut into small pieces and cooked in curry and rice.
Investigations into the murder showed that the cooked human remains were packed in black plastic bags and thrown into roadside dustbins.
The sister of the three men, Naragatha Vally Ramiah, 37 mother, Kamachi Krishnasamy, 58, and Radhakrishnan’s wife, Mary Manuee, 33, were not re-arrested after they walked out of the Subordinate Courts following their discharge.
The three brothers have been detained at Changi Prison under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act since June 22, 1987.
Justice Goh Joon Seng on Friday granted an application by counsel Peter Fernando to adjourn the matter to a later date so that full arguments on the merits of the case could be presented.
Mr. Fernando said his clients had been detained on the very same allegation of murder which the Attorney-General’s Chambers had conceded it had insufficient evidence to proceed on.
“The arguments in this case will be extensive and it concerned very much the liberty of the subjects and the constitutionality or illegality of these detentions,” said counsel. He said there were previous applications for habeas corpus in this case but these were dismissed. No arguments were presented then.
Senior State Counsel S.Tiwari, for the respondents, submitted that the petition did not merit a full hearing. He said in such cases, the grounds that the detention was unlawful must be stated in the affidavit.
A man, convicted of armed robbery and given 48 strokes of the cane – twice the legal maximum allowed for an adult at a single trial – is suing the Government for damages and expenses.
Qwek Kee Chong, 26, who was convicted in 1987, is still serving a 10-year jail sentence at Changi Prison where the caning took place.
The suit was filed in the High Court by his family’s lawyer Mr Peter Fernando on March 1. However, the amount of damages has not been specified.
Qwek was one of a gang of four robbers charged with holding up 38 gambling dens and hair salons over a seven-month period from January 1987.
They escaped with cash and valuables amounting to $230,362.
In one of the hold-ups on July 18, 1987, three victims were injured by the gang, whose members were armed with parangs.
The robbers were arrested on Aug 15 that year.
On Nov 30, 1987 Qwek, who was then 22, pleaded guilty to four of the charges. The other 34 charges were taken into consideration.
He was not represented by a defence counsel at that time.
On each of first three charges, he was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment and ordered to be given 12 strokes of the cane.
For the fourth charge he was given 4 years’ jail and 12 strokes of the cane.
The first and fourth charges were ordered to run consecutively, making the total sentence amount to a 10-year jail term and 48 strokes of the cane.
On April 8, 1988, Qwek was given the full 48 strokes of the cane.
The Criminal Procedure Code states: ” When the accused is sentenced to caning, the number of strokes is sentenced to caning, the number of strokes shall be specified in the sentence.
“In no cases shall the caning awarded in any one trial exceed 24 strokes in the case of an adult….”
The CPC also states that no sentence of caning can be meted out by instalments. A medical officer must be present during the caning and the prisoner must be certified fit to undergo such punishment.
Mr Fernando told The Straits Times yesterday that he believed Qwek was warded at Changi Prison Hospital following the caning.
He said he had written to the hospital requesting a medical report on his client, but had yet to receive it.
Mr Fernando also disclosed that he was hoping to have Qwek examined by a local specialist to determine the extent of his injuries.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers, acting for the Government, submitted its defence to the High Court on April 29
Pardon is second granted by President Wee in two months’.
A death row convict, who murdered an illegal moneylender four years ago, was spared the gallows after he was granted clemency by the President on Monday.
Koh Swee Beng, now 26, was sentenced to life imprisonment instead.
This is the second time in two months’ that a death row convict has been given a presidential pardon.
In March, a mother of two, Sim Ah Cheoh, 47 convicted of drug trafficking, also had her death sentence reduced to life imprisonment by President Wee Kim Wee.
Her two accomplices were hanged last month after they were convicted of helping her to transport 1.37 kg heroin from Hotel Negara to Changi Airport in a taxi in April 1985.
The President’s private secretary informed Koh’s lawyers, Messrs Leo Fernando, that the President, after due consideration and with the advice of the Cabinet, had commuted Koh’s death sentence.
Koh petitioned for clemency in March this year after his appeal was rejected by the Court of Criminal Appeal last September.
He was found guilty by the High Court in April 1990 of killing Mr Tay Kim Teck, 31, at Block 66, Jalan Tiong, on Feb 16, 1988.
Koh became infuriated when he heard that Mr Tay had beaten up his “foster father”, Mr Tan Ai Soon, during a gambling session at a market in Lengkok Bahru.
He grabbed a knife from a stall and joined his three “sworn brothers” (Mr Tan’s sons) and two others in chasing and attacking the victim, who was later stabbed to death.
Koh’s defence was that he was provoked by Mr Tay’s assault on Mr Tan and also the vulgar words the victim used against him. Mr Tay was also armed with a stool.
Originally, the three brothers, their brother-in-law and a family friend were also accused of the murder while being in an unlawful assembly but the charge was later reduced.
They then pleaded guilty and were each sentenced to two years’ jail and four strokes of the cane.
Koh’s lawyer, Mr Peter Fernando, who broke the good news to Koh at Changi Prison yesterday, told The Straits Times: “He’s overjoyed.”
He said Koh hugged him and cried after he was told of the clemency.
“He had resigned himself to face death,” Mr Fernando said.
Life imprisonment usually means a 20-year term in prison. But with one-third remission for good behaviour, Koh can expect to serve a total of about 14 years.
In his petition for clemency, Mr Fernando said his client came from a poor family, had a good and clean national service record and was not a secret society member.
Koh was particularly close to Mr Tan, 61, who treated him like his own son, and he spent most of his time with the Tan family.
He was overwhelmed with anger when he saw his “foster father” bleeding and groaning in pain after the assault by Mr Tay, police supervisee.
Two men convicted of murdering a maid escaped the gallows on appeal yesterday when they were convicted of manslaughter instead. Each was jailed eight years.
Tan Chee Hwee, 23, and Joseph Soon Kim Liang, 22, were found by the court of Criminal Appeal to have strangled Miss Evangeline Diso on Sept 20, 1989, accidentally when they tied her up without intending to injure her.
Chief Justice Yong Pung How, Justice M. Karthigesu and justice Goh Joon Seng said in their judgement that the evidence did not support the finding that Tan and Soon both intended to murder Miss Diso, 28, a Filipina.
Tan and Soon smiled on hearing the verdict. One nodded to the judges while the other said “thank you”.
On July 15 last year, they were sentenced to death by Judicial Commissioner M.P.H. Rubin who found them guilty of murder.
The evidence was that they were in debt for $15,000 and planned with friends Mok Swee Kok, 19, and Chris Tang Wei Ping, 21 to burgle Tang’s Happy Avenue Central home.
Tang provided the house key. The other three went there when the house was empty. But Tang’s maid, Miss Diso, 28, returned suddenly. Tan and Soon confronted her.
There was a struggle as they tried to subdue her and tie her up and stop her from screaming. While doing that, they strangled her with the cord of electric iron.
The judge’s grounds were that there may not have been any preconceived intention to murder when they entered the house but there was common intention to do it when the maid returned to the house and began screaming.
In police statements, Tan said that he killed her accidentally with Soon’s help. Soon said that there was no reason to murder her.
They wanted to make her unconscious for a while and stop her from screaming as they were scared that the neighbours would hear her and report to the police.
On appeal, defence counsel said that there was no intention to injure her so that she would die. Mr R. Palakrishnan for Tan and Mr. Peter Fernando for Soon said that their clients were guilty of manslaughter at the most.
The Court of criminal Appeal agreed and found that is Tan wanted to kill, he would have hit her with the iron at the end of the cord, rather than tie or strangle her.
The strangling was in all probability not intentional but accidental or unintentionally caused, they concluded.
Mok was sentenced in September 1991 to seven year’s jail and 12 strokes for abetting the robbery with hurt. Tang was jailed three years in April 1992 for abetment of theft and burglary.
It took five years and 10 judges – half the present number on the Supreme Court Bench – to finally come to a decision that a man in death row should go free.
It was also the first time that a convicted person had to spend such a long period in death row before the final outcome of his appeal.
And it is the first time, too, that a convicted person’s appeal was heard afresh despite his earlier appeal being dismissed.
The lucky man, Ramachandran Suppiah, 32, a Malaysian, could not be found after his acquittal.
Even his lawyer, Mr Peter Fernando, is trying to trace him.
Ramachandran and Krishnan Varadan, 27, were found guilty and sentenced to death for murder by Justice Lai Kew Chai and Judicial Commissioner Chan Sek Keong (now the Attorney-General) in May 1987.
They were convicted of killing a 74-year-old man, Mr Packria Samy, a provision shop owner, with a letter-opener. They had intended to rob him in his Tah Ching Road flat in July 1984.
Both subsequently appealed against the conviction in 1989.
The appeal judges, justice T.S. Sinnathuray, Justice F.A. Chua and Justice A.P. Rajah, reserved judgement. The appeal was dismissed in January last year.
But Justice Rajah retired on Sept 30, 1990, and was no longer s Aupreme Court judgement last January.
This raised the question of whether the written judgement was valid both constitutionally and in law.
The point was taken up by Mr R Palakrishnan, for Krishnan, and Mr Fernando, for Ramachandran (both assigned), before another tribunal, comprising Chief Justice Yong Pung How, justice Chao Hick Tin and Justice Goh Joon Seng.
The judges held that the written judgment was invalid and ordered a re-hearing of the appeal. This meant that Ramachandran and Krishnan, who would have otherwise been sent to the gallows, had a second chance at saving themselves from the hangman’s noose.
The unprecedented second appeal was heard by Chief Justice Yong Pung How, Justice Warren Khoo and Justice S. Rajendran
The new tribunal disagreed with the decisions of the earlier two courts and acquitted him of the murder charge. They held that on the total evidence before the trial court, the prosecution had failed to prove that Ramachandran had shared a common intention with Krishnan to murder the victim.
They agreed with Mr Fernando’s argument that Ramachandran’s defence should not have been called at all as there was neither direct nor circumstantial evidence to link him with the killing.
The judges, however, dismissed Krishnan’s appeal. Krishnan had admitted during the trial to carrying the letter-opener and stabbing the old man.
A Thai woman escaped the gallows yesterday after her appeal against conviction and sentence on a capital drug charge was allowed by a three-judge court.
Duangduan Kham-Ai, 34, was cleared of abetting two construction workers, Don Promphinit, 30, and Krishna Maikham, 31, to traffic in 1.2kg of cannabis but the Court of Appeal dismissed the men’s appeals.
The three were sentenced to death in March this year by the High Court for their respective offences in Pasir Ris on jan 10 last year.
Promphinit and Maikham, also Thais, were found guilty of selling the cannabis to an undercover narcotics officer, Staff Sergeant Tan How Boon.
Duangduan, who was arrested on Jan 11 that year, was the first Thai woman to be sentenced to death here for drug trafficking Delivering the court’s reserved judgement yesterday, Justice L.P. Thean said the prosecution’s evidence showed that Duangduan was not present when Staff Sgt Tan struck a deal to buy drugs from Promphinit at his Pasir Ris construction site quarters on Jan 7 last year.
“She took no part in the eventual delivery of the drugs and she was not at any time in possession of the drugs,” he said.
The trial judge had relied on Staff Sgt Tan’s testimony that she had earlier offered to sell him drugs. She had also asked the officer why he had not bought drugs on previous occasions.
Justice Thean, who heard the appeal with Chief Justice Yong Pung How and Justice Karthigesu, said that Staff Sgt Tan’s evidence did not really show her complicity in the drug transaction.
The court also found some difficulty accepting the Central Narcotics Bureau officer’s evidence that on Jan 9 last year, Duangduan had told him, Duangduan had told him told him to pay Maikham.
That conversation was in Mandarin, and the court held that there was some doubt whether she could understand and speak Mandarin.
The judge said the evidence against Duangduan was “much too scanty” to warrant a finding that she had abetted and conspired with the two.
He added that there was also insufficient evidence for the court to infer any conspiracy between Duangduan and the other two in the sale and delivery of the drugs to the narcotics officer.
“The charge against her has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt,” said the judge.
Even if the court accepted the evidence that she had offered to sell cannabis to Staff Sgt Tan on two previous occasions, it felt the entire evidence was so meagre that the conviction could not be sustained, Justice Thean said.
The court heard that Promphinit, who remained silent at the trial, and Maikham were picked up by Staff Sgt Tan on Jan 10 last year.
The two Thais placed a black plastic bag in the boot of the car, and Staff Sgt Tan gave them a marked $500 note. On the pretext of collecting the balance, he drove them to Block 441A, Pasir Ris Drive 6, where they were, arrested.
Mr Peter Fernando and Mr Rabi Ahmad (assigned) appeared for Duangduan.
A 32-year-old pork seller’s assistant escaped the gallows when he was acquitted by the High Court of a capital drug trafficking charge without his defence being called.
Judicial Commissioner Amarjit Singh on Friday accepted defence lawyer Peter Fernando’s argument that the prosecution had failed to show that Goh Cheng Kee knew that a man travelling in his car had drugs in his pocket.
But the judge called his front-seat passenger, Loo Koon Seng, 34, to make his defence on a charge of trafficking in 55.6 g of heroin on June 23 last year.
The mandatory punishment is death for anyone convicted of trafficking in 15 g. or more of heroin.
The prosecution’s case was that narcotics officers at Woodlands checkpoint saw Goh drive his Honda Accord to Johor Baru and back again that afternoon.
During this time, another group of officers was keeping watch on Loo, who took his family out to lunch at Charcoal Grill Restaurant and then to the zoo. It was not said in court why the officers were watching the two men.
Loo subsequently took a taxi from the zoo to Saujana Road, off Bukit Panjang Road.
Goh later picked up Loo, who was waiting along Saujana Road.
They then drove to Jalan Lokam, off Upper Paya Lebar Road, where Loo alighted and walked towards a row of shophouses. He was seen putting an envelope into his left trouser pocket.
The narcotics officers closed in and arrested both the men. Two envelopes containing a total of 55.6 g of heroin were seized from Loo’s trouser pockets.
The pair was charged with drug trafficking.
The prosecution on Friday failed in its attempts to admit as evidence a statement made by Loo to the Central Narcotics Bureau in which he was said to have implicated Goh.
The judge rejected the statement on the grounds that it was not made voluntarily.
At the close of the prosecution’s case, Goh’s counsel, Mr Fernando, argued successfully that the prosecution had not made out a case.
He said that the prosecution had failed to prove that Goh knew that Loo had drugs on him. There was no link at all between Goh and the drugs in Loo’s pockets.
The judge agreed and acquitted him but called Loo to make his defence on the trafficking charge. He will make his defence tomorrow.
By Tan Ooi Boon
A man accused of raping his nine-year-old niece was acquitted by the High Court after the judge found the girl’s testimony “simply incredible”.
She had claimed that she was raped by her aunt’s husband three times between December 1994 and December last year, each time while her aunt was asleep in the same bed.
Justice T.S. Sinnathuray threw out the prosecution’s case on Monday. The man was acquitted without his defence being called as the court ruled that the prosecution had not made out its case.
The judge cast doubt on the girl’s evidence because, when she testified in May this year, she was able to recall the alleged rapes in great detail although they had supposedly taken place three years ago.
Defence counsel Peter Fernando argued that his client, a 33-year-old salesman, was framed and that the girl’s story was “a pure fantasy”.
Although the man has been acquitted, he cannot be named because this would lead to the girl being identified.
She is now 12 years old and a Secondary 1 student in an overseas school.
The prosecution’s case was that the man raped the girl on three occasions when he and his wife stayed over at the flat where their niece lived. The incident was reported only after the alleged third rape in December last year.
To support her case, Deputy Public Prosecutor Deena Abdul Aziz Bajrai had produced medical evidence to show that the girl had tears in her hymen.
While Justice Sinnathuray accepted that these tears were more likely to have been caused by sex than strenuous exercise as suggested by the defence, he noted that this alone was not sufficient to incriminate the man.
The girl said that on all the three occasions, she had played board or card games with her uncle and brother in a bedroom with her aunt present.
After that, she said, all of them slept in the same bed and her uncle raped her shortly after his wife fell asleep.
The judge noted that while the attacks supposedly caused her immense pain, she did not make any noise or wake her aunt, who was lying beside her.
During the hearing, when Mr. Fernando asked her why she did not tell her aunt then, the girl said: ” Because she was sleeping soundly. Actually, I wanted to wake her up at first but after that, I didn’t want to wake her up.”
A 37-year-old woman and her 13-year-old son were charged in court yesterday with hurting their Indonesian maid. Hartati, last month.
They each face one charge of hitting Hartati, 15. on the stomach and buttocks with badminton racquets in their apartment in Meyer Road.
The son faces another 10 charges – one of hurting Hartati grievously, two of hurting her with a weapon, and seven of hurting her in their apartments in Nassim Hill and Meyer Road over two months’, May and June this year.
The mother faces nine other charges of abetting her son in hurting the maid, by not stopping him from doing so on nine other occasions. (see chart)
Her case was heard first in the Subordinate Courts yesterday morning, before her son’s case was mentioned in the Juvenile Court in the afternoon.
District Judge Louis D’Souza said the initial bail offer of $20,000 was “grossly in adequate”, and this was later raised to $50,000 in one surety. The woman’s passport has also been seized.
Clad in a long-sleeved shirt with pink and white stripes that was worn over black slacks, the slim and slight woman – who is about 1.5-m tall – looked calm as the charges were read out to her. She did not say anything.
The Straits Times understands that ” a close friend” posted bail for her soon after the court proceedings yesterday morning.
A short while later. She was seen walking towards the Ministry of Labour building in Havelock Road, near the Subordinate Courts, with a woman friend. Both of them left in a taxi.
But she was back in court – the Juvenile Court in Paterson Road – at 3 pm yesterday for her son’s case.
She was still wearing black slacks but had changed into a black blouse with the letters “CD” in white imprinted all over it. The son wore an off-white T-shirt grey Valentino corduroy jeans and sports shoes. He was represented by Mr. Fernando’s colleague, Mr Ramesh Tiwary.
The police prosecutor applied for a four-week adjournment for the maid’s medical report to be ready. and to see a Deputy Public Prosecutor for further instructions on the case.
Magistrate David Chew fixed the case for further mention on Aug 21, and bail was set at $10,000.
Both mother and son – he is just a few cm taller than she is – remained calm while his charges were read out to him. They did not say anything.
He was bailed out by “an old neighbour” as his parents are separated, and his father is out of the country.
At 3:30 pm, the bailor drove the woman away in a white BMW. before he returned an hour late to bail the boy out.
The Straits Times is not publishing the names and photographs of both the mother and the son because this is prohibited under the law.
Section 35 of the Children and Young Persons Act provides that no newspaper report of any proceedings in a Juvenile Court can reveal the name, address, school or any information that can lead to the identification of the juvenile in the case.
This includes the publication of both the mother and son’s photographs.
The maximum penalty for breaking this law is a $1,000 fine.
However, the same section also provides that the Juvenile Court or the Minister in Charge can decide to do away with this restriction if either is satisfied that this would serve the interests of justice.
A teenage boy who burned a maid with a hot iron and scalded her with boiling water was yesterday put on probation for the maximum three years. He will spend the first year at the Bukit Batok Boy’s Hostel and then be on supervised probation.
The 14-year-old boy, a Secondary 2 student cannot beamed because he is a juvenile offender.
The court ordered that he continue to have psychological treatment to help him control his impulses and deal with aggression and provocation.
He must also do 240 hours community service, the maximum, and stay indoors from 10 pm to 6 am.
His mother, a 38-year-old businesswoman, must attend 120 hours of counselling. She had to sign a $10,000- good behaviour bond. She listened to the verdict with tears in her eyes.
The boy admitted assaulting Miss Hartati Ali Sodikun, 15, five times at his Meyer Road home last year.
Three other charges were considered in sentencing. He was acquitted of three other charges when the prosecution withdrew them.
In February, mother and son were acquitted of feeding the maid dog faeces twice and hitting her with tennis racquets, because the trial judge was not satisfied with the maid’s testimony.
In his 17-page grounds of decision yesterday, District Judge Tay Swee Keng, assisted by a panel of advisers, said the boy’s father, a businessman, doted on the younger son whom he believed brought him good luck, and shunned the elder boy because soon after his birth “his father’s business plunged and he attributed these failures to the boy for bringing him bad luck”.
The judgment was highly critical of the boy’s parents, whose lack of supervision had contributed largely to offences.
Since the boy was seven, he had been left largely in the care of maids. The father was harsh, critical and intolerant of him, and would often punish him for no apparent reason, said the judge.
The boy’s parents were separated and though he lived with his mother, she did not supervise and discipline him properly. She was so “devasted and disappointed by his Primary School Leaving Examination results” that she refused to sign the option form to place him in other schools. Her husband had to fly in from Malaysia to do so.
A consultant psychiatrist in government service said the boy was suffering from a severe conduct disorder, to which a broken home, strained ties with his father and his mother’s adverse parenting had contributed.
The boy was not a troublemaker, said the judge, but as he had committed ” terrifying acts of violence” against a vulnerable victim, a probation order without a period of institutionalization is insufficient to motivate him to change. He said: “The probation order should not be perceived by the offender, the victim and the members of the public as a ‘let-off’ for his offences.”
Jail term reduced for maid molester
A man who was given 15 months’ jail and six strokes of the cane for molesting his Indonesian maid repeatedly, had his jail term reduced to six months’ on appeal.
But the High Court fined Koh Siew Huat, 37, a supervisor, a total of $2,000 yesterday.
Chief Justice Yong Pung How agreed with Koh’s lawyer, Mr. Peter Fernando, that two concurrent six-month jail terms for touching the maid’s leg and hand and kissing her on the cheek, were too harsh and replaced them with fines of $1,000 each.
He also reduced two other concurrent jail terms – from nine months’ each to concurrent terms of six months’ each.
He also reduced two other concurrent jail terms – from nine months’ each to concurrent terms of six months’ each.
Koh, 37, who is married and has two children, will now serve a total of six months’ in jail. He was found guilty by a district court last September of four charges of molesting the 24-year-old maid, who had started to work for him and his family in their Bukit Batok flat in 1995. He started to molested her in the flat in April 1996. He touched her legs, pressed her breasts and kissed her on four separate occasions.
During the trial, the maid said that in the first molest, he had touched her on the right leg as she was about to go to bed.
The Second incident took place in June 1996, when he grabbed her left breast as she was washing clothes in a toilet in the flat.
Later that month, she said, he hugged her and placed his hand on her left breast. The last instance was on Sept 8, 1996, when he kissed her on the left cheek and hugged her.
He had denied the charges, Claiming that the maid had made up the allegations because the family was planning to send her home as her work was unsatisfactory.
CJ replaces jail term with a fine of $1,500 and sets aside order to pay compensation to dead dog’s owner By LIM SENG JIN
Businessman Michael Gracia, 32, who was sentenced to three months’ jail last Tuesday for killing a dog, walked out yesterday after being behind bars for only a week.
Chief Justice Yong Pung How exercised his revisionary powers to replace the jail term with a fine of $1,500, and set aside an order that Gracia pay the dog’s owner $1,300. The businessman had already paid Mr. Khoo Tou Khiang, 45, a civil engineer, and will now get his money back.
Mr. Gracia, also known as Mr. David Devito, does not have to pay the $1,500 fine since he has already spent a week in jail, which is what he would have served if he did not pay the fine.
It was on Jan 25 that his dog got into a fight with the boxer and Mr. Khoo’s two other dogs. Mr. Gracia kicked and killed Mr. Khoo’s boxer.
He went to jail because he could not raise bail pending his appeal against his conviction and sentence. But the CJ called for the special hearing yesterday before the appeal could be heard.
CJ Yong said he had asked for the file papers for this case after he found out about it.
He upheld District Judge Adab Singh’s conviction, Saying that the businessman was “vindictive” in going up to Mr. Khoo and pushing him and kicking his boxer even sfter the dogs had been separated.
But he agreed with the defence lawyer, Mr. Peter Fernando, that the sentences were “manifestly excessive”.
He replaced the three month jail term, for committing mischief by killing the dog, with a $1,000 fine.
He also substituted a $500 maximum fine for the businessman’s two week jail term for using criminal force on Mr. Khoo by pushing him.
CJ Yong said Mr. Gracia would have to serve a week’s jail each if he could not pay the fines, but made the terms concurrent.
He said Mr. Khoo was also o blame for the boxer’s death because he had failed to keep his tree dog’s leashed, and had allowed them to attack Mr. Gracia’s dog.
The CJ said: ” A very great majority of people in Singapore are afraid of dogs.
“In my view, Mr. Khoo, and others like him in future, should be prosecuted under Section 8 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act if, for example, his dog rushes at a person”.
This section provides that owners of dogs that habitually run after people, cars and bicycles can be fined up to $1,000.
It is not known yet, if Mr. Khoo can be prosecuted under this section, as he has already paid a $100 composition fine for not having the boxer on a leash.
Added the CJ yesterday: “In this case, we’re all sorry that boxer died, Mr. Khoo has ended up losing his $1,300 dog. But I think he has only himself to blame.”
Mr. Gracia’s sister, who declined to be named, told The Straits Times yesterday that she was “very happy” for her brother
“I’m also very happy that the papers reported both sides. I think that may have helped things to turn out this way.”
Mr. Gracia declined to answer questions from reporters who waited for him to be released outside Queenstown Remand Prison yesterday evening.
He said: “I have only one thing to say. I want to thank all those people who wrote in to the press in support of me.”
Asked what he was going to do next, he replied:”I’m going home to see my dog.”
Expat in trouble after night out
A Briton was given a discharge amounting to an acquittal for allegedly molesting a pub waitress
A night out at a pub in Boat Quay landed a British expatriate in the dock on Tuesday after he allegedly molested a waitress and then pushed a policeman who was trying to get him into the lock-up at a police station
In court on Tuesday, Timothy Mark Alden, 30, paid $2,000 to have the molest charge compounded and District Judge See Kee Oon gave him a discharge amounting to an acquittal.
Alden, the general manager of a yacht broking firm, had apologized to the 18-year-old waitress in court on Monday. He had allegedly squeezed her buttocks at the pub.
A Briton who has lived in Singapore for the past nine years, he is director and shareholder of YTC Yachts (SEA), a firm that imports and brokers luxury yachts, his lawyer said.
Alden had gone out for a beer with a friend, the captain of one of his client’s yachts, on Feb 17.
After the incident, he was taken to Central Police head-quarters. There, he pushed Corporal N.S. Rajan, who was escorting him into the lock-up, on the chest.
Alden admitted doing this and was fined $3,000 for using force on a public servant. Another charge of uttering abusive words to the policeman was considered in sentencing.
The molest charge was compounded after Alden paid $2,000
Pleading for leniency, his lawyer Peter Fernando told the court that his client suffers from high blood pressure and was sorry for what he had done.
Alden, he said, had written to the commander of Central Police HQ, apologising for his actions at the station, and had also extended his “personal and genuine apologies” to Cpl Rajan.
Two couples, two knives. One woman attacks her husband with a kitchen knife. A man takes a chopper to his wife, Both end up in court. The Knife wielders are fined but not jailed. The couples reconcile. Still, it shows that when things get heated, it’s better to stay out of kitchen ELENA CHONG
traces the anatomy of separate domestic quarrels that ended up in court yesterday.
He hit wife with chopper after drinks
A district judge yesterday ticked off a man for hitting his wife on the head with the blunt edge of a chopper when they quarrelled one night.
“Tell the accused he has got no business doing what he did to his wife,” said District Judge Syed Alwee Ahmad Alsree.
He warned Tan Kok Huat that he would be jailed should he show up in court again.
Tan, 38, a duck rice seller who has previous convictions for fighting and drink-driving, got off with a $1,000 fine.
Tan and Madam Xiao Tao, 30, a chinese national, have been married for just over a year. They quarrelled at home in Bedok North Street 3 at about 11:30 pm on April 22.
She was unhappy that he had come home late after going drinking. When they quarrelled, tan hit her on the head with blunt side of the chopper.
Defence counsel Peter Fernando said in mitigation that his client was supporting six people, including his 71-year-old mother and two sons, aged six and 13, from a previous marriage, and a four-month-old baby girl with his present wife.
This is the lawyer’s version of events:
Tan got home at 10:50 pm and missed his wife.
Then she called and asked him to tell the maid to pack her things because she wasn’t coming back. He persuaded her to return, and apologised for coming home late.
When She returned, she took out her suitcase from the storeroom.
Tan lost his cool and picked up the chopper. When she challenged him to use it on her, he hit her on the head.
He clearly did not mean to inflict any serious injury, and knew immediately he had done wrong.
Given a $1,000 fine for hitting his China-born wife with a chopper, Tan leaves the court with her, She has since forgiven him.
‘TELL THE ACCUSED HE HAS GOT NO BUSINESS DOING WHAT HE DID TO HIS WIFE’ – District Judge Syed Alwee Ahmad Alsree.
His wife went to the police post to ask them to accompany her home to collect her belongings, not to report Tan, The lawyer urged the court to give Tan a last chance.
Madam Xiao, who was in tears, later also told the judge that it was the first time they had quarrelled. She said she had forgiven him and that they were living together harmoniously again.
Tan who looked relieved, wiped away his tears and bowed respectfully to the court from the dock after he was given the maximum fine, and not sent to jail.
Second Warrant Officer Raymond Michael D’Cotta’s impeccable service record has come to his rescue.
D’Cotta, 41, who was arrested last December for getting into a drunken brawl with a police officer, has been let off with a suspension and a $500 fine.
The supension meant that D’Cotta, a parachute jump instructor with the School of Commandos, will not be performing in the National Day Parade for the first time in 10 years.
Chief Justice Yong Pung How, who heard his appeal, said that D’Cotta had been given 24 years of good service and was a first offender.
The CJ noted that even a single day in jial would cost D’Cotta’s his pension.
Setting aside the jail term, the CJ said the father of three will still have to pay the $500 fine.
Terming the case as “very unusual”, the CJ said the man had not meant to hurt the policeman.
“His real offence was his drunkenness and while he was drunk, he lost control of himself,” the CJ said.
The incident happened when D’Cotta had attended his unit’s anniversary dinner on Dec 1 last year.
He had gone to a pub with his colleagues and got drunk that night.
D’Cotta’s friends had put him in a taxi and directed the cabby to take him home to Elias Road in Pasir Ris.
Instead the cabby took him to Le Meridien hotel on Orchard Road.
When he realised that he was not home, he shouted and used his fists to hit a stationary taxi.
When the police arrived at the scene, he was told him to behave and leave.
But an inebriated D’Cotta shouted profanities at them.
They arrested him.
Later at Tanglin Police Division, when he was told to take off his shoes, he promptly did so but he hit a police sergeant with a shoe.
Arguing the appeal yesterday, lawyer Peter Fernando asked the court to give D’Cotta a second chance for that “one folly in his life.”.
He pleaded that his client would lose his pension if he were jailed.
After hearing the judgment, D’Cotta said: “What is most painful is I won’t be in this year’s NDP because of my suspension.”
Three men accused of trying to extort $28,000 from a 36-year-old warehouse supervisor were acquitted yesterday.
The trio – construction contractor Tor Seng Cheong, 42; Mr. Teo Keng Chai, 50, unemployed; and renovation contractor Tan Hock Lian, 43 – were alleged to have accused Mr. Liew Choon Heng, a married man, of having sex with Mr. Tor’s mistress.
For this, they were said to have demanded compensation from him at a coffee shop in Upper Bukit Timah Road at about 5pm on June 28 last year.
During a three day trial last month, the trio denied threatening Mr. Liew.
Yesterday, in clearing them of the charge, district judge Siva Shanmugam found that Mr. Liew had not been fearful of injury to himself or anyone else, which is the essence of the offence of extortion. Instead, he felt that Mr. Liew had been exploring an amicable resolution to the dispute between him and Mr. Tor.
Mr. Liew had been confronted at the Jurong flat of Mr. Tor’s mistress, Madam Tay Seak Lan, 38, after Mr. Tor found him there, shirtless, with her.
The contractor slapped Madam Tay, then a karaoke lounge hostess, because she had told him she would be out shopping at the time.
He stopped Mr. Liew from leaving the flat and called in his friends, Mr. Tan and Mr. Teo. The four men then went to a coffee shop to discuss the matter.
Mr. Tor testified that Mr. Liew had offered to compensate him with a sum of money, but he had refused it and demanded an apology instead.
Yesterday, the judge noted that none of the men had, at any time, prevented Mr. Liew from leaving the coffee shop. Also, Mr. Liew had said that he had agreed to pay Mr. Tor $28,000 when all four were at the coffee shop simply because he wanted to leave the place.
After the verdict, the three men shook hands vigorously with their lawyers and supporters in court.
Mr. Tan became so emotional, he hugged his lawyer, Mr. Peter Fernando. He later said: “We’d been wronged. For the past seven months, I’d been so worried over this case. All over a woman.”
Mr. Tor, who has ended his relationship with Madam Tay, said: “Justice has been done.”
Net misuse slight, says CJ, allowing appeal of man who downloaded firm’s website onto his own and used it to cheat
– By Ben Nadarajan
A businessman who downloaded another company’s website onto his own and used it to cheat an Iranian businessman out of about $73,500 had his sentence halved by the Chief Justice after an appeal.
Cutting the one-year jail term to six months’, Chief Justice Yong Pung How said he disagreed with district judge Valerie Thean’s earlier judgement – she had over-emphasised the Net misuse factor.
He said the trial judge had wrongly applied several of his earlier judgments where he had passed heavy sentences on offenders who had abused the use of Internet.
Last year, Rupchand Bhojwani Sunil was given the maximum sentence of one year for cheating by the district judge. Rupchand, 45 had downloaded the website of Power & Motion Control (PMC), a firm which distributes Vickers cartridge kits here, onto his own website, EconSingapore.
When Iranian businessman Kevyan Alf submitted an online order form on PMC’s website, Rupchand assessed his form and took note of his contact information. He then contacted Mr Kevyan, claiming to be the sole distributor of Vicker products in Singapore.
The Iranian paid Rupchand, Who runs the House Of Shadows, a tourist attraction at Clarke Quay, about $73,500 for his order. When he failed to receive the goods months’ later, he contacted PMC and realised he had been cheated.
In her grounds for the decision, the district judge had said that e-commerce requires “special protection medium of business” and she meted out the maximum sentence to signal to the international business world that the safety and security of e-commerce is “jealously guarded” by the local courts.
However, the CJ said this was a simple case of cheating, with only a”slight involvement of Internet misuse along the way”.
In considering the appeal filed by defence lawyer Peter Fernando, he also pointed out that the charge against Rupchand did not even mention the use of the Net to cheat.
He also agreed with Mr. Fernando’s point that Rupchand’s offense was one of “simple deception” and not one which required a “level of sophistication”
Rupchand’s act of downloading PMC’s website onto his own website was “incidental to the commission of the offence” rather than being a “substantial aspect of the offence itself”.
Cabby escapes hanging after appeal court finds him guilty of culpable homicide
A cabby who hacked his unfaithful wife to death two years ago was yesterday saved from the gallows, when the Court of Appeal set aside his murder conviction.
The court overturned the decision of the High Court judge who had sentenced G. Krishnasamy Naidu to death in April after rejecting his defence of diminished responsibility.
Instead, Justice Choo Han Teck, Justice Tay Yong Kwang and Justice V.K. Rajah convicted him of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which carries either life imprisonment or a maximum of 10 years in jail.
After he heard the verdict, delivered by Justice Choo, Krishnasamy, 44, buried his face in his hands and wiped his eyes with the sleeve of his prison jumpsuit.
Smiles broke out on faces of his family and friends, who shook one another’s hands. However, Krishnasamy’s children and his wife’s family were disappointed by the reprieve.
His 17-year-old son said yesterday: “ I wish he were dead.”
From the outset, Krishnasamy admitted killing his wife, Madam Chitrabathy Narayanasamy, 39 in front of her colleagues outside the Sony factory where she worked.
Madam Chitrabathy had a string of extra-marital affairs in their 20-year marriage.
During the trial, Krishnasamy’s lawyers relied on the findings of two government psychiatrists who had said he suffered from a mental illness known as morbid jealousy.
However, the trial judge, Justice Woo Bih Li, used a “three-stage test” to conclude that, in spite of his illness, he did not qualify for the defence of diminished responsibility.
He accepted that Krishnasamy was suffering from an abnormality of mind and that it was caused by morbid jealousy. But he found that the abnormality did not substantially impair his mental responsibility for his actions.
However, the Court of Appeal found that there was a lack of convincing reasons to support the trial judge’s conclusion.
The trial judge had said Krishnasamy’s planning and execution of the killing, as well as his awareness of the penalty for murder, showed that his mental responsibility was not diminished.
But Justice Choo said the trial judge appeared to have rejected consultant psychiatrist Dr. Stephen Phang’s evidence that a person with an abnormal mind was still capable of making and carrying out elaborate plans.
“When a person has already been determined to be suffering from an abnormality of mind in present circumstances, how does one determine what sort of conduct, and at which point that person’s action may be said to have been impaired, and when it has not?”
In this case, applying the three-stage test resulted in a serious incongruity, said Justice Choo.
Krishnasamy will have to appear in court in three weeks to be sentenced. The court rejected a request from his lawyer Mr. Peter Fernando that he be given eight weeks so that a new psychiatric report could be prepared.
Krishnasamy has been undergoing treatment for the past 28 months’, he said.
Mr. Fernando later told reporters: “Word’s can’t describe my feelings that the rope of death has been removed from around my client’s neck.”
selinal@sph.com.sg
‘I WISH FATHER WOULD HANG’, H8
Prosecution asks for life sentence but, Judge says:
9 years will give him chance to change
He is a danger to the society with his violent streak and disregard for authority.
The evidence: The way he stabbed the victim 11 times.
His previous criminal offences also reveal his violent nature – a result of his anti-social personality disorder.
Such a person has a high risk of re-offending in the future and needs to be kept behind bars for the rest of his life.
These were the arguments made by the prosecution at the High Court yesterday, in pushing for a life sentence for convicted killer Sadayan Ajmeershah
The 27-year-old bartender had stabbed Mr Jagagevan Jayaram, a 26-year-old bouncer, who died in hospital an hour after a fight with Sadayan and two accomplices at a playground near Block 125, Ang Mo Kio Avenue 6, on 25 April last year.
Sadayan, who initially faced the gallows on a murder charge, yesterday pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of culpable homicide before Justice Tay Yong Kwang.
He could have been jailed for life.
But the judge disagreed with the prosecution and sentenced him to nine years in jail and 12 strokes of the cane.
One key factor, the judge pointed out was that Sadayan had not sought vengeance nor retaliated after he was assaulted by Mr Jagagevan and his friends hours before the fatal fight.
The irony was that they didn’t know each other before they got involved in a dispute between Sadayan’s friend and Mr Jagagevan’s sister.
In fact, Justice Tay said it was Mr Jagagevan “who appeared to have over-reacted over a relatively minor-incident and sought revenge”.
The judge added: “But the accused didn’t seek revenge because he wanted peace after he foolishly got involved in others’ disputes.”
He noted that the deceased had returned with a chopper to look for Sadayan – an act which led to the fatal incident.
Justice Tay also disagreed with Deputy Public Prosecutor Lee Cheow Han that a life sentence was necessary to prevent Sadayan from commiting a similar offence again.
PERSONALITY DISORDER
Dpp Lee referred to a psychiatric report on Sadayan, which showed he has an anti-social personality disorder, leading to his disregard for authority and social norms.
DPP Lee also said that Sadayan – who was represented by Mr Peter Fernando of Leo Fernando, and Mr Subhas Anandan and Mr Sunil Suheesan of KhattarWong – has a violent streak.
His previous offences in April 2003, included two counts of using criminal force and one for causing hurt to a police officer.
Sadayan, who was also jailed a week in February 2002 for theft was sntences to 24 months in jail for the three offences.
Repeated confrontations drive him over edge
They were strangers whose paths crossed and sparked a tragic end.
Court papers showed that Mr Jagagevan Jayaram and Sadayan Ajmeershah didn’t know each other before they got involved with someone else’s dispite that led to the fatal incident on 25 April last year.
Sadayan had gone to Mr Jagagevan’s flat at Block 215 Ang Mo Kio Ave 1 that morning to help resolve a dispute between his friend and the latter’s sister.
There he spat in the living room because he was angry that the sister kept abusing him verbally. But he apologised before he left and returned home at Block 125 215 Ang Mo Kio Ave 6.
His actions incensed Mr Jagagevan who was in the flat. He later went with four men to Sadava’s flat where they punched kicked and beat him with kitchen utensils.
Sadayan suffered multiple injuries on his head, face and abdomen. The assailants fled before the police and ambulance arrived.
He refused to go to the hospital until he had cleaned up the blood stains and mess in the flat.
Later at night, Sadayan’s friends who included the two accomplices went to his place to take him to hospital.
They were at a nearby provision shop when they saw Mr Jagagevan heading for them with the same group of assailants. The group disappeared when a police patrol car passed by.
But Mr Jagagevan returned again shortly after this time with one of the accomplices.
Sadayan panicked when Mr Jagagevan accidentally dropped a chopper he had with him. Fearing another attack Sadayan went home to get a kitchen knife and returned to join his friends.
A confrontation took place near the playground, Sadayan sat on Mr Jagagevan when the latter fell on the ground. Mr. Jagagevan swung the chopper cutting Sadayan’s neck.
This caused him to lose his claim and led to the fatal stabbing one of his lawyers said.
In passing the sentence Justice Tay Yong Kwang said the case reflects the sad truth and tragedy about vengeance and violence.
He said: The deceased’s family has lost a son and the accused will be punished accordingly too.
“The feud must end here. The sorrow suffered by both families should not be repeated.”
REASONS JUDGE DIDN’T GIVE LIFE SENTENCE
* Accused wanted peace, apologised after first confrontation
* Victim and friends repeatedly sought out accused
* Victim over-reacted by seeking revenge with chopper
* Nine-year sentence will give accused time to mend ways, mature and become better person.
Even Sadayan’s father was so fearful of his violent outbursts that he took out a personal protection order against his own son in 2002, said DPP Lee.
Describing him as a danger to people around him, DPP Lee said Sadayan’s violent streak explained why he decided to resolve the dispute himself by arming himself with a knife, instead of seeking help from police.
But the judge felt that the nine-year jail sentence, backdated to his date of arrest on 26 Apr last year, would give Sadayan enough time to mend his ways and lower the risk of him committing a similar offence.
Said Justice Tay: “After some years in prison and strokes of the cane, I’m hopeful that he will mature and emerge a person better in check with his emotions and temper.”
In pushing for a life sentence, DPP Lee said Sadayan was not immediately remorseful for his actions.
His defence lawyers had argued that after the stabbing, Sadayan shouted at Mr Jagagevan: “Why did you come back to look for me? See what has happened.”
Mr Anandan said: “This was a sign of remorse, a cry of anguish.”
But DPP Lee disagreed and said that Sadayan was trying to pin the blame of Mr.Jagagevan’s death on the latter himself.
He said: “There is no justification for stabbing someone lying on the ground 11 times. There was no remorse in the accused because he fled and threw away the knife.”
“He also only surrendered himself the next morning even though he knew his two accomplices were going to surrender themselves earlier.”
His accomplices, Arull Wanan Thangarasu, 22, and Melvin Mathenkumar Segaran, 24, had both pleaded guilty to causing hurt with dangerous weapons. They were each sentenced to four years in jail and eight strokes of the cane in April.
The defence submitted to the court a handwritten mitigation plea from Sadayan, the youngest of four children. He pleaded for light sentence, so that he could care for his 10-month-old daughter and to repay father’s sacrifice for him.
Sadayan’s then-fiancee, whom he was planning to marry in May last year, gave birth to a baby girl in November.
Sadayan’s father, Mr Sadayan Abdul Kader Jahabar Sathik, sold the family flat and spent his savings to pay for his son’s defence.
Justice Tay said before delivering the sentence: “The accused has expressed his wish to start afresh. He must be determined to help himself… He must also show his father that his sacrifice was not in vain.”
Hearing these words, Sadayan nodded his head solemnly as he raised his hands to wipe his tears.
His parents and family members, who were in court, also broke into tears at hearing the sentence.
Later outside court, his father told The New Paper: “It’s fair and just.”
![](https://www.leofernando.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/articlecasenew.jpg")
Prosecution’s case full of unacceptable gaps, says High Court – By KHUSHWANT SINGH
Two students jailed for 3 1⁄2 years each for robbery had their convictions quashed yesterday after a High Court judge found that the prosecution’s case was “full of unacceptable gaps”.
Sri Lankans Jayasekara Arachchilage Hemantha Neranjan Gamini, 20 and Jullian Hettige, Hasitha Migara Perera, 23, looked stunned at the finding.
The two, both students at a private school, were convicted of robbing Mr. Manikku Archarige Weerarathna Silva of $80 in a carpark off Serangoon Road. Mr. Gamini was also jailed for a month in a concurrent sentence for kicking another man in the alleged robbery.
Yesterday, Justice Steven Chong said the prosecution had failed to “adduce a single piece of independent corroborative evidence”. No photographs had been taken of the injuries, closed-circuit television footage of the scene had been recorded over and no attempt had been made to find out what happened to the cash.
Instead, the prosecution’s case was based on the testimony of the alleged victims, even though their accounts had “inherently incredulos aspects”. The trial judge should never have been satisfied with this testimony, said Justice Chong.
The alleged robbery took place at 4am on Nov 4, 2009 in Verdun Road.
Justice Chong said: “The elementary step of taking photographs of the alleged injuries was not carried out.”
By the time the prosecution tried to get the CCTV footage from the Rochor police center, it had been taped over.
The judge said: “This was unfortunate as the CCTV recording would have provided evidence to establish the physical state of the victims when they arrived at the police centre to file their report.”
The judge also said that only $5 was found on the suspects and no effort had been made by investigators to see where the allegedly stolen money had gone.”
“Taking all the omissions collectively, it was evident that the prosecution’s case was full of unacceptable gaps,” he added.
He then turned his attention to the testimony of the alleged victims.
Mr. Silva testified that he had gone to his rented room to change into another shirt before heading to the police station.Justice Chong, said this meant he had conveniently removed evidence, that would have corroborated his account.
The judge found the account of the other alleged victim, Mr. Sembakutti Sudarma, “even more bizarre”. He had simply walked around Serangoon Road after fleeing from the alleged robbery. He even claimed that Mr. Perera had asked him for a cigarette.
Mr. Peter Fernando and Mr. Lam Wai Seng, representing the students pro bono, argued it was outrageous to suggest that Mr. Perera would approach a man he had robbed minutes before for a smoke.
Although cleared of robbery, the students, who attended East West College in Selegie Road, could face immigration charges, said their lawyers.
Mr Gamini’s mother, 50, who works as a maid here, was in tears after the verdict. She told The Straits Times: “My son told me he did not do it and finally the court believed him, thanks to this lawyer.”
He spent two weeks in jail, was banned from the road and had to pay a $4,000 fine.
But Mr Daniel Au has now been cleared after his drink-driving conviction was quashed, in a rare move by the High Court.
The 39-year-old was acquitted after the judge heard he did not actually drive the car, but instead fell into a drunken sleep while it was parked.
The ruling effectively means that snozing at the wheel of a stationary vehicle while over the alcohol limit does not constitute an offence.
Instead, it is up to prosecutors to prove that the defendant actually drove while drunk.
Mr Au was arrested after a police patrol found him sleeping in the driver’s seat of his red Honda Fit in the early hours of Dec 18, 2009. He had earlier been relaxing at Orchard Plaza. A friend who was not drinking drove another friend and Mr Au home. After the first passenger got off, the driver and he quarrelled over money.
The driver, Mr Lim Hock Chye, stopped the car at Fourth Avenue and walked off.
Mr Au, who works as a project manager, then dozed until he was caught and given a breathalyser test, which he failed.
He received the two-week jail term and four-year driving ban in April after pleading guilty to being in charge of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.
But while behind bars, he appealed against the sentence through the prison authorities.
He then hired a new lawyer brief, Mr Peter Fernando, who advised him that the conviction was flawed and he should try to have it quashed.
The ruling effectively means snoozing at the wheel of a stationary vehicle while over the alcohol limit does not constitute an offence.
Instead, it is up to prosecutors to prove that the defendant actually drove while drunk.
During the appeal hearings in August and October, the lawyer argued that the district judge who sentenced Mr Au had not indicated that there was any evidence to show he had driven under the influence of alcohol or posed a risk to other road users.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Hay Hung Chun replied that the most appropriate course of action would be to send the case for a retrial at the district court.
But Mr Fernando objected, saying the move would be unfair and would prejudice his client as the alleged offence took place almost three years ago.
There was also no prospect of a successful prosecution because two witnesses in the car had given statements saying that he was not the driver.
Judge of Appeal V.K. Rajah agreed last month, noting that the case had dragged on for some time. He thanked both sides for their efforts.
Mr Au will have his fine refunded and his driving ban lifted.
But he told The Straits Times yesterday that he was still waiting for these to happen, three weeks on from the judgment.
He said the three-year saga had been very depressing. “Jail is not easy,” he added.
He said he was fortunate to have been able to afford to hire a lawyer and expressed concern about what might have happened had that not been the case.
A spokesman for the Attorney General’s Chambers said yesterday that prosecutors were studying the High Court decision and considering the next course of action.
He added that the case may be brought to the Court of Appeal if “the requirements under the Criminal Procedure Code are met”.
The spokesman said the Traffic Police would contact Mr Au to ask him to collect his driving license next week. Refunds of fines are administered by the Subordinate Courts, he said.
Mr Au has a previous conviction for drink driving, which earned him a $2,000 fine in 2006.
Published Nov 26,2017,5:00 am SGT
K.C.Vijayan Senior Law Correspondent (mailto:vijayan@sph.com.sg)
In a rare move, a woman facing a capital charge for allegedly importing drugs was freed on Thursday by a district court after having spent 13 months’ in a maximum security jail.
Ms.Ting Swee Ling, 33, was issued with a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNATA) on the application of the prosecution which had reviewed her case. No reason was given in court.
Ms.Ting, a Malaysian, was nabbed on Oct 26 last year at the Woodlands Checkpoint, when she was a pillion rider on a motorcycle on which two packets of a crystalline substance – containing more than 250g of pure methamphetamine or Ice – were found.
She was arrested together with motorcyclist Beh Chew Boo and both were charged with importing the drug, which on conviction carries a potential death penalty for any amount exceeding 250g. Beh is in remand and awaiting trial. He used to be her boyfriend.
Ms.Ting’s lawyer Peter Fernando made representations last month urging the prosecution to review the evidence and withdraw the case. Lawyers said that although a DNATA technically means she can still be re-arrested if there are new developments, in practice, the release is indefinite.
“I have not come across a case in my experience where an accused person issued with a DNATA is subsequently re-detained,” said veteran lawyer Amolat Singh, who added that such a discharge can be made on various grounds.
