Another mystery on how the S'pore Law works

[Papsmearer]

I don't understand why this kid was charged with rioting? Shouldn't it be for assault? Or attempted murder. In the past when 2 groups of gangster stare at each other and a fight ensued, no one was charged with rioting. To commit a riot, there must be a pre-meditated assembly of people intend on creating violence, damage of property, or terrorizing people. In this case, there does not appear to be intend, as the 2 groups met by coincidence, and had not premeditately planned to attack each other. If some bro can kindly tell me why the charge is rioting, I would appreciate it very much. Until then, the singapore legal system is pretty fucked up.






Teenager pleads guilty to rioting
By Shaffiq Alkhatib | Posted: 28 June 2010 1552 hrs


Photos 1 of 1






SINGAPORE: A teenager has pleaded guilty to rioting that left one of the victims with a severed finger and another with a fractured skull.

17-year-old Muhammad Rozaidi Abdullah, who was waiting to be enrolled into MacPherson ITE, had committed the offence with six alleged accomplices.

One of them is a 15-year-old boy.

He has been dealt with in the Juvenile Court and ordered to be detained at the Singapore Boys' Home.

The others, who are between 16 and 17 years old will be dealt with separately.

The court heard that Muhammad Rozaidi and the other members of his group were walking along Pasir Ris Drive 3 on 5 March 2010 when they came across a group of six on the opposite side of the road.

The two victims, Lee Dao Hong and Abel Lim Kay Hern, both 17, were part of that group.

Muhammad Rozaidi and his friends accused the other group of staring at them.

Dao Hong made a rude gesture at them and a scuffle broke out.

It's believed one member of Muhammad Rozaidi's group, identified as 16-year-old Muhammad Farhan Roslan had with him a knife with a 32-centimetre-long blade.

He allegedly took out the weapon and passed it to one of his friends.

17-year-old Mohammad Farihin Hassan is believed to have used the weapon to slash Dao Hong's hands.

After that, he allegedly used the knife to slash Abel's head.

It's believed Mohammad Farihin also used its handle to knock him on the back of his head.

Abel then fell backwards onto the ground.

Muhammad Rozaidi's group fled the scene shortly after this and went their separate ways.

District Judge Soh Tze Bian has called for a pre-sentence Reformative Training Centre report.

Muhammad Rozaidi will appear again in court on July 19.

For rioting with a deadly weapon, he could be sentenced to ten years' jail and caned. - CNA/vm

 

[kingrant]

During the 60s, gang fights were treated as rioting too. Papers then also reported accordingly. During law class at PNS, I also learnt that people caught fighting can be charged with rioting. Nothing new.

 

[Ramseth]

I don't understand why this kid was charged with rioting? Shouldn't it be for assault? Or attempted murder. In the past when 2 groups of gangster stare at each other and a fight ensued, no one was charged with rioting. To commit a riot, there must be a pre-meditated assembly of people intend on creating violence, damage of property, or terrorizing people. In this case, there does not appear to be intend, as the 2 groups met by coincidence, and had not premeditately planned to attack each other. If some bro can kindly tell me why the charge is rioting, I would appreciate it very much. Until then, the singapore legal system is pretty fucked up.

You're confused. It's the correct charge. Common intention at the point of action is already pre-existing before whatever premeditation required.

 

[jw5]

Attempted murder maybe not, but why not assault?
I'm perturbed that such cases seem to be treated relatively lightly. There are too many cases of staring incidents, or verbal disputes leading to one group of people attacking and assaulting another group or an individual these days.
And the injuries can be really severe, even death.
Several years ago, there was a case where an individual went to a hdb void deck to tell a group of 3 men to lower their voices as it was the early hours of the morning. There was a verbal dispute and the 3 ganged up and beat up the individual, killing him.
Based on my recollection, they were sentenced to not more than 3 years in jail. With good behaviour, they should be out by now.
I hope that they are continuing this good behaviour now that they are back in society, and not going back to beating and killing people over a dispute.

 

[Papsmearer]

During the 60s, gang fights were treated as rioting too. Papers then also reported accordingly. During law class at PNS, I also learnt that people caught fighting can be charged with rioting. Nothing new.

U are joking right? I think your law prof need to go back to school. If the DPPs have been using the wrong charge for years, it does not make it right.

Singapore Penal Code Chapter VIII: Offences against Public Tranquility
Rioting – The offence of rioting is committed whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of the assembly.[36] The punishment for rioting is imprisonment of up to five years and caning,[37] or imprisonment of up to seven years and caning if a person is found rioting while armed with a deadly weapon.

Notice the key phrase is "common object of the assembly". In this case, the group of youths common object does not seem to be deliberate commitment of rioting. The group was just walking along Pasir Ris Drive 3. They could have been going to eat, watch movie, etc. This would be the common object of the assembly. Looking for another group to fight does not appear to be the common objective.

Instead, should they not have been charged under the same Section:
Affray – An affray is committed when two or more persons fight in a public place and disturb the public peace.[39] The punishment for affray is imprisonment of up to one year, or a fine of up to S$1,000, or both

Or how about under Chapter XVI:
Voluntarily causing grievous hurt – The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous":
(a) emasculation;
(b) permanent privation of the sight of either eye;
(c) permanent privation of the hearing of either ear;
(d) privation of any member or joint;
(e) destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint;
(f) permanent disfiguration of the head or face;
(g) fracture or dislocation of a bone;
(h) any hurt which endangers life, or which causes the sufferer to be, during the space of 20 days, in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.[58]
Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if the hurt which he intends to cause or knows himself to be likely to cause is grievous hurt, and if the hurt which he causes is grievous hurt, is said "voluntarily to cause grievous hurt".[59] The punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt is imprisonment of up to seven years, and also fine or caning

I am just saying there appears to me to be more appropriate sections of the penal code to charge these kids under, rather than Rioting.

 

[Papsmearer]

You're confused. It's the correct charge. Common intention at the point of action is already pre-existing before whatever premeditation required.

U are wrong, see my post above.

 

[scroobal]

This is how its worked all these years. 5 or more fighting on one side, the charge is rioting. If 4 or less, it affray. Same action but operating condition is the number on one side.

U are wrong, see my post above.

 

[kingrant]

That is the law of LKY. Not any DPP or law prof or prof PAPsmearer.

Ask him and he'll tell you he inherited it from the Brits. Persist, and he'll tell you it has worked for years, why change it?

U are joking right? I think your law prof need to go back to school. If the DPPs have been using the wrong charge for years, it does not make it right.


I am just saying there appears to me to be more appropriate sections of the penal code to charge these kids under, rather than Rioting.

 

[jw5]

The guy who was caught holding on to a gun was just sentenced to 12 years jail, wasn't he?
I'm not saying that he shouldn't have been charged and punished, but 12 years for holding on a to a gun, compared to less than 3 years for beating and killing someone?
The facts also indicated that he didn't seem to have the intention of using it. Of course only he knows, but there was no evidence to indicate that he had the intention to use it to commit a crime.

Why is it like this?
A possible theory is the "It could happen to me" theory.
Fights or disputes whereby a group of people gang up to assault and maim or kill one or more people, this type of crime would not happen to the elites and their families and friends. It's only the unknown, ordinary, "nobody" people who get involved or entangled in such crimes.
But the possibility, even if it's remote, of someone pulling a gun and shooting one of the elites or their family and friends? It could happen.
Both types of crimes are wrong and should be punished severely, but the relative severity of the punishment is not correct.
Justice should not be this way.

 

[Ramseth]

U are wrong, see my post above.

It doesn't matter whether the rioters called each other up and fixed an appointment with premeditation of objective or not. The common intention and action constitute rioting, even by happenstance. If there's premeditated arrangement of a gang of more than five to commit violent crime, another charge, criminal conspiracy, would be called for. Go read about Pulau Senang to understand rioting and criminal conspiracy. Both added together can result in mass life or death sentences.