• 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.

This lau cheebye murderer still allowed to drive?

Dogtracker

Alfrescian
Loyal
In-SG-EDITOR.jpg


Editor gets a day's jail, $2k fine


By Selina Lum


Lim Hong Eng (left), the 56-year-old executive editor of Shin Min Daily News, was there to hear the outcome of the appeal against her sentence for knocking down and injuring a motorcyclist and killing the woman riding pillion with him. --ST PHOTO: ALPHONSUS CHERN


IT WAS a day of twists and turns for a newspaper editor in the High Court on Friday.

Lim Hong Eng, the 56-year-old executive editor of Shin Min Daily News, was there to hear the outcome of the appeal against her sentence for knocking down and injuring a motorcyclist and killing the woman riding pillion with him.

The appeal against her conviction was rejected, but the 11/2-year jail term dealt by a lower court was cut to a day's jail and a $12,000 fine on two charges.

Later in the morning, defence lawyers and the prosecutor ran some checks and realised that there had been a sentencing error for one of the charges.

The mistake was for the charge of causing death by dangerous driving, for which she was jailed a day and fined $10,000. The Road Traffic Act does not make a provision for a fine for this offence, only jail-time.

So it was back to court after the lunch hour. When Lim re-entered the courtroom, the smile that lit up her face upon the morning's verdict was replaced by an anxious expression.

Her counsel Subhas Anandantold Justice Choo Han Teck that he may have misled the judge with his arguments for a 'high fine' to be imposed on Lim.

Justice Choo set aside the fine, saying: 'In the circumstances, it will not be right to increase the custodial sentence to the detriment of the accused.'

Relief washed over Lim to know that the fine's being set aside was not going to mean a longer jail term for her. The judge made it clear, however, that this was a one-off case and was not to be used as a sentencing precedent.
Mr Anandan later told reporters that Lim will donate to charity the $10,000 she was to pay in the fine.
 

littlefish

Alfrescian
Loyal
Somehow I feel that if she was just a taxi driver or if the victims were elites, she would not have gotten off so easily. The judge has already covered his backside by saying that this case is one-off and not to be used as a precedent for future cases. So, in future, lesser mortals committing the same offence and using the same defence may not receive the same treatment.

I wonder what is so one-off about this case. If the traffic lights were working and the visibility was unobstructed and good, then blame can only fall on the driver. However upset or distracted the driver may be, she still owes a duty to exercise proper care as she was in control of a machine that can cause injury and death. Unless the driver suffered a heart attack or some other ailment and was incapacitated temporarily, the punishment is grossly inappropriate for the offence. The victims' families must feel extremely aggrieved at such a sentence.
 

popdod

Alfrescian
Loyal
A DAY JAIL???


What kind of sentence is that?
Elite life is really more impt than lesser mortal life.

:mad: :( :mad:
 

singveld

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
PAP really know how to take care of their dogs.
through their kangaroo court, anything is possible.
 

annexa

Alfrescian
Loyal
This sentence is surely not fair! Kill people you know!

By the way, I survive another laughable infraction spam by Dogtracker. :smile:
 

R4g3

Alfrescian
Loyal
The mistake was for the charge of causing death by dangerous driving, for which she was jailed a day and fined $10,000. The Road Traffic Act does not make a provision for a fine for this offence, only jail-time.

Justice Choo set aside the fine, saying: 'In the circumstances, it will not be right to increase the custodial sentence to the detriment of the accused.'

So who made the mistake and who should be responsible? No one?
And the murderer becomes the one benefit from a mistake even though a life is lost?

This is really ridiculous. why this kind of "mistake" and "benefits" doesn't go to the poor man who have to spend 6 months in jail?:mad:
 

commoner

Alfrescian
Loyal
well.. if the victin is the judge's family,,,,, sure kena charge under murder or man slaugher one
 

KuanTi01

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
well said! but this laucheebye has special status and money. not anyone can become shinmin editor, get it.
wtf one day jail. Might as well let her go scot free. due to her selfishness, a human life is lost. she better ride a bicycle lah or walk. :mad:
 

angie II

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
CJ_amend.jpg


The Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong

Hor Kee Lan lah! The Father of all Kangaroos!

Judith%20Prakash%20J_cropped.jpg


Justice Judith Prakash

Justice Choo set aside the fine, saying: 'In the circumstances, it will not be right to increase the custodial sentence to the detriment of the accused.'

Choo%20Han%20Teck%20J_cropped.jpg


Justice Choo Han Teck

Belinda%20Ang%20J_cropped.jpg


Justice Belinda Ang

This lau cb was sucking LKY's cock non stop in court during CSJ defamation suit.



 

Dogtracker

Alfrescian
Loyal
This sentence is surely not fair! Kill people you know!

By the way, I survive another laughable infraction spam by Dogtracker. :smile:

Fucking PAP IB bitch revealed your regularly used by MIW cunt isst? Fuck you and suck my dick as well!
 
Top