Fenale Lexus ran cyclist thinking it was a tree branch!! Must see Court verdict!

[jim007jimmyboy]

http://www.tnp.sg/news/story/0,4136,256905,00.html?

Lexus driver hits cyclist, he bounces off windscreen. She fails to stop, drag bike for 2km.

Court was told : She thought cyclist was a tree branch..

chao cheebye Court fines the cunt $2,400 only no jail term.
She upz the previous 154th Shin Min Editor record!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HER car rammed into a cyclist from the rear so hard that he flew and hit the front windscreen, cracking part of it, before rolling onto the road.

But Cleopatra Wong Yuin Ping, 30, thought the body that smashed into the windscreen was a rotten tree branch that had fallen.

She did not bother to stop and continued driving her car along Holland Road.

Wong was also unaware that her victim's bicycle was stuck in the undercarriage of the Lexus ES300 belonging to her father, despite the noise of the bicycle scraping against the road.

The bicycle was dragged for about 2km before it was dislodged.

When Wong, who was a teacher then, reached home, she went to bed.

She realised something was wrong only when she woke up in the morning and found out that the police had towed away the five-year-old Lexus.

Taken to court over the accident, Wong claimed that the soundproofing of the Lexus was so good that she thought the "sounds" she heard were caused by the tree branch.

Last month, she was fined a total of $2,400 – $800 on each of three charges – and disqualified from driving for a year.

She had pleaded guilty to inconsiderate driving, failing to stop after an accident and failing to render assistance after an accident.

 

[jim007jimmyboy]

i ask u is it the same??

cheebye Judge bot her story:oIo:

 

[jim007jimmyboy]

our Courts getting more and more debased

 

[halsey02]

Ask Cleopatra WRONG, if she is insertrd with the real 'ba na na', & a vibrator, can she tell the difference; or she is going to say, "the vibrator is so well made, that it feels like the real thing"!!!

 

[Einfield]

Her Name already tell you she is one big nutcase.

Ask Cleopatra WRONG, if she is insertrd with the real 'ba na na', & a vibrator, can she tell the difference; or she is going to say, "the vibrator is so well made, that it feels like the real thing"!!!

 

[tonychat]

http://www.tnp.sg/news/story/0,4136,256905,00.html?

Lexus driver hits cyclist, he bounces off windscreen. She fails to stop, drag bike for 2km.

Court was told : She thought cyclist was a tree branch..

chao cheebye Court fines the cunt $2,400 only no jail term.
She upz the previous 154th Shin Min Editor record!

If you drive some lousy proton saga, you will get jail term but if you drive a ferrari, you just get off with a warning. Lexus is sort of in between and more to the ferrari side.

The jail term depend on what car you are driving.

My sinkie fren whose family has a business in distributing food stuff to the whole of sinkieland, his first car is a BMW. He knocked down one lady, a jaywalker, and she died. He just got off a temporary ban driving , fine and no jail.

That time he was just in his young 20s.

 

[Cestbon]

Kangaroo court. Tree branch! AT least stop the car and remove the branch them continue driving. Try to con people give better reason.

 

[Watchman]

Taken to court over the accident, Wong claimed that the soundproofing of the Lexus was so good that she thought the "sounds" she heard were caused by the tree branch.

LOL a testament to Lexus ...

If she can sleep soundly after the incident .

It shows that " ignorance " is bliss not necessary innocent !

 

[tonychat]

i thought it should be testimonial

 

[Internet Brigade]

The Present Case

21 In determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed in respect of the said charge, the factors to be considered include: (a) the level of culpability; (b) the degree of injury or property damage suffered; (c) evidence of alcohol consumption; (d) failure to stop to evade arrest; and (e) the existence of prior antecedents. In the case of Lim Meng Soon v Public Prosecutor [2007] SGHC 129, Justice Lee Seiu Kin in discussing the varying levels of culpability in respect of an offence of failing to render assistance stated:

“31. As with most offences, there is a spectrum of circumstances encompassing varying degrees of culpability, ranging from the least serious, where the driver reasonably contemplates negligible damage or the absence of injury, to the other extreme, where the driver perceives the carnage of crumpled metal, torn flesh and spilled blood. In between these extremes, there are varying shades of grey. Although the offence under s 84(8) is made out once there is death, injury or damage to property, the appropriate degree of punishment must depend on what the offender reasonably apprehends, and not the actual degree of damage that was occasioned, although they tend to be correlated…”

22 As the Accused in the present case is a first offender and there was no indication that she had driven while under the influence of drinks, I will only deal with her level of culpability, the degree of injury and property damage suffered and whether there was there was a failure to stop in order to evade arrest.

(a) Level of culpability

23 In the present case, the facts disclose that on 19 October 2008 at about 5.13 am, the accused was driving her father’s motorcar SDY 8668 S along Holland Road towards Ulu Pandan. While traveling straight, she had collided onto the rear of the victim’s bicycle, causing the victim to be flung onto the windscreen of the motor car and to fall to the left side of the road. The Statement of Facts however did not disclose in which lane of Holland Road the Accused and the victim were traveling on prior to the accident. I noted that in her mitigation, it was the Accused’s position that she was traveling in the middle lane and in response the prosecution stated that according to the victim, he was traveling on the double yellow line.

24 It was highlighted in her plea in mitigation and not disputed by the prosecution, that there was a canopy of trees along the stretch of road where she had been travelling. She was traveling at 60 km/h and was returning home after unsuccessfully looking for her cousin Charlene Tan. She had heard a loud bang at the left side of her front windscreen and her attention was immediately drawn to the point. She assumed it must be a rotten branch that had fallen on her windscreen. The window was cracked or shattered from the impact. I noted that this assumption by the Accused on the cause of the impact was not challenged by the prosecution. Bearing in mind that the incident occurred in the early hours of the morning at about 5.13 am, it was possible that the shadows cast from the canopy of trees would have had on impact on her line of sight resulting in her mistaken assumption as to the nature of the ‘object’ that had struck her windscreen.

25 Further, I noted that in the present case, in respect of DAC 59669/2009(“First Charge”) the Accused was originally charged with an offence of dangerous driving under Section 64(1) Road Traffic Act. This charge was subsequently reduced to one of inconsiderate driving under Section 65(b) Road Traffic Act (Cap 276) an offences with requires a lower degree of culpability.

26 Having considered the above factors, I was of the view that the present case was not one involving a high level of culpability evidenced by a willful or reckless disregard of the rules of the road and an apparent disregard for the great danger caused to others. It was also not an instance of a moderate level of culpability characterised by calculated risk-taking which created a substantial risk of danger. In my view, the present case involves a low level of culpability characterized by a lapse in concentration or a serious error of judgment on the part of the Accused. This was evidenced by the lack of awareness on her part that she had hit a cyclist and her mistaken assumption that a broken branch had landed onto the windscreen of the car. This was in all probability compounded by her anxiety as to the whereabouts of her cousin.

(b) Degree of injury and/or property damage suffered

27 From the facts and the medical report, I noted that the victim had suffered the following injuries:

a. 4 cm laceration over the right side of forehead;

b. Multiple abrasions and contusion left chest wall and scapular region;

c. Undisplaced fracture left scapula

The victim was observed for two days at the Singapore General Hospital and treated with suturing of forehead wound, analgesics and arm sling for the scapular fracture and discharged on 21 October 2008. It was also indicated in the medical report dated 2 September 2009 that he was given medical leave from 19 October 2008 to 16 November 2008. Nevertheless, it was not entirely clear whether the injuries suffered by the victim had caused him to be ‘during a period of 7 days in severe bodily pain or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits’. In respect of the property damage, on the facts, it was disclosed that the accused’s vehicle and the victim’s bicycle were moderately damaged as a result of the accident.

(c) Failure to stop to evade arrest?

28 According to her plea in mitigation, the Accused had not stopped the vehicle to check as she was under the mistaken assumption that it was a rotten branch that had fallen on her windscreen. Upon reaching home, she noticed that there were a few dents and scratches on the left front bumper. In her mind, there was no urgency to report as it involved a branch. She went to bed with the intention to make a report later in the morning and to inform the insurance company. It was not disputed that the police had come to her home before 8.00 am and had towed the car away. Her brother had called the police at about 9.00 a.m. and an officer responded informing him the driver of the vehicle is to call him. The Accused had immediately called one “Mr Lim Chee Wai”. I note as reflected in the charges, the investigation officer for the present case is Senior Staff Sergeant Woo Chee Wai.

29 From the above facts, it would appear that there was no deliberate attempt on the part of the Accused not to stop in order to evade arrest. The Accused had also immediately called the police once she was informed by the brother. Further, there was no evidence that she had intended to conceal the evidence from the impact as she had intended to make a report later in the morning and to inform the insurance company.

Conclusion

30 I was of the view that the present case was not one that required the imposition of a custodial sentence in view of the low level of culpability on the part of the Accused and the facts of the present case. Further, when I asked whether the prosecution wished to address me on sentence, the prosecution had indicated that he had no submissions on sentence. As stated by Justice Lee Seiu Kin in Lee Meng Soon’s case, the appropriate degree of punishment must depend on what the offender reasonably apprehends, and not the actual degree of damage that was occasioned. In my view, the case was one which involves a serious error in judgment on the part of the Accused which resulted in her lack of awareness or mistaken assumption as to the nature of what had actually hit the windscreen of the car. Accordingly in respect of DAC 59672/2009, I imposed a fine of $800 in default four days’ imprisonment and ordered the Accused to be disqualified for a period of twelve months’ for all classes of vehicles. Further, I was also of the view that the twelve months’ disqualification period for all classes of vehicles would be a sufficient deterrent to the Accused as she would have to go through the entire process of obtaining a driving licence all over again should she decide to drive again.

31 Dissatisfied with my decision, the Prosecution lodged a Notice of Appeal on 1 September 2010 against the sentence I imposed in respect of DAC 59672/2009 only. The Accused has paid the fines in respect of all the charges proceeded against her.

 

[tonychat]

The one who manage and handle the law must put in the human factor to it. IF everyone just go according to wat is being written in the program, then it makes no diff from a robot.

A product of the SInkie Education.

 

[giggity_shit]

The one who manage and handle the law must put in the human factor to it. IF everyone just go according to wat is being written in the program, then it makes no diff from a robot.

A product of the SInkie Education.

She is just lucky she didn't kill or disable the cyclist.

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

It may be true that she couldn't hear the scraping sounds but if she can't discern a bike and its rider from a tree branch then something is horribly wrong with her eyesight.

The biker should get a lawyer and sue her.

 

[sam heng]

FUCK UP Sinkie women are growing in number! I said when you see one siam far far!

 

[sleaguepunter]

that why most motorist dislike female drivers. They dont care when they are driving, behaving like their ah gong's road.
i dunno about others, if something really fell on the vehicle i am in, i will pull over and access the damages. Take some photos to help process insurance claims. If a tree branch the size of a human being fell on the wind screen, wont a normal person stop to check on the damages to the car? i seriously doubt she was awake just before the accident occurred. she could have doze off and swerve off the road and knock into the cyclist at the side of the road. Her father better get rid of the jap lexus and buy a continental car sedan that come with a sensor to wake up the driver when the car computer sense that the driver is falling asleep behind the wheel.

 

[huahero]

Wong claimed that the soundproofing of the Lexus was so good that she thought the "sounds" she heard were caused by the tree branch.

有钱的人说大话! Such explanation also can!!! 老天没眼!

 

[jimmyfallon]

Must be elite daughter

 

[middaydog]

She is just lucky she didn't kill or disable the cyclist.

no mentioning of biker's fate

Was he Sam Leong ?

 

[johnny333]

Anyone noticed that she's 30 & still living with her parents

She's probably one of those "old" maid condemn to the shelf.

 

[scroobal]

AG has lodged an appeal. That is quite telling. The operating rule in such cases is failing to keep a proper lookout. All the other aspects cited by the judge appears to be mitigating and quite secondary.