http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/Breaking+News/Courts+and+Crime/Story/STIStory_270150.html
CJ acquits man on appeal
The hotel caretaker had appealed for a shorter jail term.
By Khushwant Singh
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=bottom><TD width=330>
</TD><TD width=10>
</TD><TD vAlign=bottom>
Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong (left) noted that there was no link between the threat of shooting SSSgt Lim and injuring her reputation. -- ST PHOTO: TAN SUAN ANN
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
'I find it difficult to appreciate or conceive how those words could have injured her reputation. The charge should have been dismissed on this ground alone.' - Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong
A HOTEL caretaker who appealed against his three-month jail term for threatening a police officer had his conviction quashed by the Chief Justice.
The charge against Mr Chan Yok Tuang, 48, was 'incoherent', said CJ Chan Sek Keong in a judgement delivered on Wednesday.
Mr Chan had pleaded guilty to criminal intimidation - for having threatened to cause injury to the reputation of Senior Staff-Sergeant Jessie Lim Geok Hwee.
What he said in Hokkien, however, was 'I will shoot her to death', which carried with it the intent of causing her alarm.
The CJ thus found no rational link between the alleged threat and the injury inflicted on her reputation.
He said: 'I find it difficult to appreciate or conceive how those words could have injured her reputation. The charge should have been dismissed on this ground alone.'
He added that the statement of facts describing the circumstances of the offence read out in the lower court showed that Mr Chan had merely intended to say that he wanted to file a complaint against SS Sgt Lim.
Her understanding of his utterance was that it was a threat on her life.
So going by the statement of facts, Mr Chan did not commit the offence to which he had pleaded guilty, the CJ said.
Mr Chan's lawyer Surian Sidambaram also argued last month that there was some confusion over the exact meaning of the phrase 'Wah soot hor yi see', which Mr Chan had used.
The lawyer had said that his client could have used 'soot' as the phonetic equivalent of the English word 'sue'.
The prosecution, on the other hand, suggested that Mr Chan had used a mixture of Hokkien and English and had meant 'shoot.'
Declining to speculate on the words used or their meaning, the CJ said that the only admissable evidence was what was stated in the statement of facts, which clearly indicated that, whatever Mr Chan might have said, it was not to threaten to shoot SS Sgt Lim.
The CJ also said that it was necessary to include the actual Hokkien words in Chinese characters as well as the phonetic equivalent in English in the charge, instead of having only the English translation of the words.
'What was said in Hokkien was understood by SS Sgt Lim in a sense entirely different from what the appellant (Mr Chan) had meant by his utterance.'
District Judge Adrian Soon had also erred by imposing the three-month jail term because he considered criminal intimidation to be a serious offence.
But the CJ noted that criminal intimidation covered acts of varying gravity, including acts which could not be said to be serious.
A relieved Mr Chan declined to speak to reporters but his wife said: 'This was so unexpected. We are so glad. Finally, this thing is over and we can return to our normal lives.'
CJ acquits man on appeal
The hotel caretaker had appealed for a shorter jail term.
By Khushwant Singh
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=bottom><TD width=330>
</TD><TD width=10>
Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong (left) noted that there was no link between the threat of shooting SSSgt Lim and injuring her reputation. -- ST PHOTO: TAN SUAN ANN
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
'I find it difficult to appreciate or conceive how those words could have injured her reputation. The charge should have been dismissed on this ground alone.' - Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong
A HOTEL caretaker who appealed against his three-month jail term for threatening a police officer had his conviction quashed by the Chief Justice.
The charge against Mr Chan Yok Tuang, 48, was 'incoherent', said CJ Chan Sek Keong in a judgement delivered on Wednesday.
Mr Chan had pleaded guilty to criminal intimidation - for having threatened to cause injury to the reputation of Senior Staff-Sergeant Jessie Lim Geok Hwee.
What he said in Hokkien, however, was 'I will shoot her to death', which carried with it the intent of causing her alarm.
The CJ thus found no rational link between the alleged threat and the injury inflicted on her reputation.
He said: 'I find it difficult to appreciate or conceive how those words could have injured her reputation. The charge should have been dismissed on this ground alone.'
He added that the statement of facts describing the circumstances of the offence read out in the lower court showed that Mr Chan had merely intended to say that he wanted to file a complaint against SS Sgt Lim.
Her understanding of his utterance was that it was a threat on her life.
So going by the statement of facts, Mr Chan did not commit the offence to which he had pleaded guilty, the CJ said.
Mr Chan's lawyer Surian Sidambaram also argued last month that there was some confusion over the exact meaning of the phrase 'Wah soot hor yi see', which Mr Chan had used.
The lawyer had said that his client could have used 'soot' as the phonetic equivalent of the English word 'sue'.
The prosecution, on the other hand, suggested that Mr Chan had used a mixture of Hokkien and English and had meant 'shoot.'
Declining to speculate on the words used or their meaning, the CJ said that the only admissable evidence was what was stated in the statement of facts, which clearly indicated that, whatever Mr Chan might have said, it was not to threaten to shoot SS Sgt Lim.
The CJ also said that it was necessary to include the actual Hokkien words in Chinese characters as well as the phonetic equivalent in English in the charge, instead of having only the English translation of the words.
'What was said in Hokkien was understood by SS Sgt Lim in a sense entirely different from what the appellant (Mr Chan) had meant by his utterance.'
District Judge Adrian Soon had also erred by imposing the three-month jail term because he considered criminal intimidation to be a serious offence.
But the CJ noted that criminal intimidation covered acts of varying gravity, including acts which could not be said to be serious.
A relieved Mr Chan declined to speak to reporters but his wife said: 'This was so unexpected. We are so glad. Finally, this thing is over and we can return to our normal lives.'
:p 
