THey are all legal lackeys.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
How Come Justice Choo does not know the Law? Got snookered by apuneh lawyer.
- Thread starter Papsmearer
- Start date
THey are all legal lackeys.
It is clearly seen that Justice Choo does not know his law well. I recall my secondary teacher telling me 'If not sure about something, go and find out. Dun always depend on others for answer. Only stupid people does that." This Choo fellow not sure still dun want to ask, pretend to know then kenna play out by ah neh and also the reporter who wrote it. Isn't checking the statue before sentencing a standard?
That being said, time for us to move on again?
That being said, time for us to move on again?
Now I wonder what CJ Chan Sek Keong would have done if he was hearing that appeal instead?
Appeal to what higher authority? This I believe was the final court of appeal.
Can this be done under the procedure as it stands? This was a criminal appeal case afterall.
1 day jail means no need to stay jail overnight lah.
1 day meaning you report to court , kenna lock up, do all the necessary processing, then release liao.
I'm quite sure about this. For 2 day jail, means sleep 1 night , and release next day (usually in afternoon).
Wayang Party
Questions for Justice Choo Han Teck in the sentencing of Shin Min editor Lim Hong Eng
April 23, 2009 by admin
Filed under Daily Musings
Leave a comment
By Joe Seck, Guest Columnist
A strange series of events unfolded in the courtroom of Justice Choo, just the other day. Justice Choo was hearing the appeal of the hit and run killer driver Ms. Lim Hong Eng.
For those of us who are unaware, Ms. Lim is the Executive Editor of the Shin Ming Daily News. As with all mass media publications in Singapore, Editor positions are only given to politically connected and pliant supporters of the PAP.
Ms Lim had been sentenced to a jail term of 1 1/2 years by a lower court for negligently driving while using her hand phone, and subsequently running a red light and striking a motorcyclist and his passenger. The passenger died, while the motorcyclist suffered serious injuries.
Justice Choo decided to uphold the lower court’s conviction, but reduce the sentence. Ms. Lim’s lawyer, the brilliant Subhas Anandan of Khattar Wong Law Firm suggested a “high fine”, instead of jail time. Justice Choo apparently agreed and change the sentence to 1 day’s jail and a fine totalling $12,000 over the 2 charges.
It was only discovered later by Mr. Anandan and the prosecutor that on the second charge of which a $10,000 fine had been levied, the statute in that particular law had no provisions for a fine, it only had provisions for a jail term.
Justice Choo had no choice but to remove the $10,000 fine. However, he did not subtitute that with any added jail time, claiming that “in the circumstances, it will not be right to increase the custodial sentence to the detriment of the accused.” And he added that this was a one off case and not to be used as a sentencing precedent.
The end result is that Ms. Lim was jailed for 1 day and fined $2,000, an absurdly light sentence for taking the life of someone through negligence.
Well, my questions are quite simple:
- Why does a High Court Justice not know the law? Surely, he must have sentenced under this statute before? Does he not review all his court cases before hand to see what is allowed under the sentencing guidelines?
-Why is this a one off case? Are not the actions in a Singapore Court of Law applicable to all Singaporeans? How can this be a one off case applicable only to a privileged person like Ms. Lim? Aren’t the courts supposed to be impartial? Is this a one off because he made a mistake?
- If a fine was not applicable on the second charge, could he not increase the fine or jail time on the first charge, instead of leaving it at $2,000.
- Why did the prosecutor not point out in court at that time that a fine was inappropriate for this statute? After all, is his job not to oppose the appeal of Ms. Lim?
- Finally, why is Justice Choo referring to Ms. Lim as the “accused”? Has she not been convicted already? Did he not already uphold the conviction? Since she is convicted, she cannot be an “accused” anymore. She is the “guilty party”. How come Justice Choo cannot differentiate between “accused” and “convicted”. This is totally unacceptable.
Questions for Justice Choo Han Teck in the sentencing of Shin Min editor Lim Hong Eng
April 23, 2009 by admin
Filed under Daily Musings
Leave a comment
By Joe Seck, Guest Columnist
A strange series of events unfolded in the courtroom of Justice Choo, just the other day. Justice Choo was hearing the appeal of the hit and run killer driver Ms. Lim Hong Eng.
For those of us who are unaware, Ms. Lim is the Executive Editor of the Shin Ming Daily News. As with all mass media publications in Singapore, Editor positions are only given to politically connected and pliant supporters of the PAP.
Ms Lim had been sentenced to a jail term of 1 1/2 years by a lower court for negligently driving while using her hand phone, and subsequently running a red light and striking a motorcyclist and his passenger. The passenger died, while the motorcyclist suffered serious injuries.
Justice Choo decided to uphold the lower court’s conviction, but reduce the sentence. Ms. Lim’s lawyer, the brilliant Subhas Anandan of Khattar Wong Law Firm suggested a “high fine”, instead of jail time. Justice Choo apparently agreed and change the sentence to 1 day’s jail and a fine totalling $12,000 over the 2 charges.
It was only discovered later by Mr. Anandan and the prosecutor that on the second charge of which a $10,000 fine had been levied, the statute in that particular law had no provisions for a fine, it only had provisions for a jail term.
Justice Choo had no choice but to remove the $10,000 fine. However, he did not subtitute that with any added jail time, claiming that “in the circumstances, it will not be right to increase the custodial sentence to the detriment of the accused.” And he added that this was a one off case and not to be used as a sentencing precedent.
The end result is that Ms. Lim was jailed for 1 day and fined $2,000, an absurdly light sentence for taking the life of someone through negligence.
Well, my questions are quite simple:
- Why does a High Court Justice not know the law? Surely, he must have sentenced under this statute before? Does he not review all his court cases before hand to see what is allowed under the sentencing guidelines?
-Why is this a one off case? Are not the actions in a Singapore Court of Law applicable to all Singaporeans? How can this be a one off case applicable only to a privileged person like Ms. Lim? Aren’t the courts supposed to be impartial? Is this a one off because he made a mistake?
- If a fine was not applicable on the second charge, could he not increase the fine or jail time on the first charge, instead of leaving it at $2,000.
- Why did the prosecutor not point out in court at that time that a fine was inappropriate for this statute? After all, is his job not to oppose the appeal of Ms. Lim?
- Finally, why is Justice Choo referring to Ms. Lim as the “accused”? Has she not been convicted already? Did he not already uphold the conviction? Since she is convicted, she cannot be an “accused” anymore. She is the “guilty party”. How come Justice Choo cannot differentiate between “accused” and “convicted”. This is totally unacceptable.
The lao chee bye still reporting back to work at Sin Ming? Or she kena demoted or promoted to work under the table of LHL sucking cock?
There is no confusion here. Gay Loong is a bapok, he does not want cock sucking from a female, even one with such a cheebye face as Lim Hong Eng. If Lim is a man, than different story, he will do the cock sucking
Re: How Come SDPies support Foreign Worker over Singaporean
Quote;"Other people have killed others in accidents and only get $4,000 fine and 10 years suspension. This person is already punished by having a diferent charge against her."
What about other people have killed others in accidents and they got a few years jail and a hefty fine and 10 years suspension. These people are the ordinary men and women in the streets.
For extraordinary people, the elites, surgeons, FT professionals,including this elite SPH auntie they can kill someone on the roads and they escaped with only a fine and a long suspension. What has this to do with SDP, style or no style? Facts are facts and they are reported by the press too. What's your problem?
Quote;"Other people have killed others in accidents and only get $4,000 fine and 10 years suspension. This person is already punished by having a diferent charge against her."
What about other people have killed others in accidents and they got a few years jail and a hefty fine and 10 years suspension. These people are the ordinary men and women in the streets.
For extraordinary people, the elites, surgeons, FT professionals,including this elite SPH auntie they can kill someone on the roads and they escaped with only a fine and a long suspension. What has this to do with SDP, style or no style? Facts are facts and they are reported by the press too. What's your problem?
Yes, u are quite right
The lao chee bye still reporting back to work at Sin Ming? Or she kena demoted or promoted to work under the table of LHL sucking cock?
She holds a privileged position as the spin doctor for the MIWs helping to con the chinese speaking peasants into being part of the 66.6%........ the system made sure she is above the law and will still be around to help spin stories especially with the elections akan datang
MafiaLEE : "Peasants you die is your biz........ we take care of our elites!"
That is the normal procedure for peasants......... fyi this bitch was already having lunch "outside" the holding cell with her kakis in the court building cafe :( ....... apparently they are so confident she will be walking free........ KELONG !!
Re: How Come SDPies support Foreign Worker over Singaporean
Sad to say, but I think u are right. In this case the pillion rider and motorcyclists were malays, I believe. Or indians. Anyway, they were nobodies. If its was an angmo, jap tourist, treasured FT, another elite, etc. I am sure the sentence would have been more severe.
Sad to say, but I think u are right. In this case the pillion rider and motorcyclists were malays, I believe. Or indians. Anyway, they were nobodies. If its was an angmo, jap tourist, treasured FT, another elite, etc. I am sure the sentence would have been more severe.
Remember this!!
SG has a majority pop of 75% chinese whom made the country what it is today.
http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?t=23304
CB keling,
why dun you make that % higher by fucking off back to your slums in india:oIo::oIo::oIo:
u can have all the cow dung, cow urine back there:oIo::oIo:
Similar threads
