Wah Long Si Lan only 1 day jail?

[Watchman]

Why report when verdict not fullfilled !

April 17, 2009
Charged over cabby's death


By Elena Chong


A YOUNG motorist was charged in a district court on Friday with causing the death of a cabby by dangerous driving and injuring a passenger in his car.

Bimond Ang Mao Shun, 20, a salesman, allegedly beat the red lights along Penang Road and hit Mr Mohammed Faizal Sumawi's taxi which was proceeding along Killiney Road towards River Valley at about 2.15am on July 5 last year.

The charge says the collision resulted in the taxi being 'lifted up'. It flew to the left side of the junction across the zebra crossing before it overturned and landed on the footpath.

Mr Faizal, 35, who worked as a technical officer by day, died on the spot.

Ang is also accused of causing hurt to Miss Tjoa Shyet Teng, 20, a sales assistant, seated in front of his Mitsubishi Evo 9, by doing an act so rashly as to endanger life or the personal safety of others.

If convicted of causing death by dangerous driving, Ang faces a mandatory jail term of up to five years.

The other offence is punishable with up to one year in jail and/or a fine of up to $5,000.

Ang is out on bail. His case has been fixed for a pre-trial conference on May 11.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Itchy to wear your legal hat again eh?

you lost cause your lawyer failed to lay out the particulars of the implied term of good faith, which was nonetheless excluded by contract. he should have advised you not to fight the case, but he probably wanted to make your money. cost you more than 15-20k?

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

Does anyone know the exact wording of the law regarding this case? I mean the criminal offense.

I'm wondering how the judge can differentiate between rash and negligent.

Beating a red light should be more rash than negligent. I mean a red light is for you to stop. Have you ever seen a motor vehicle that doesn't adhere to a red light??? Or even a green light?

If a driver doesn't adhere to basic rules such as stopping at a red light then it is more a case of being rash. If the accident occured during an ember light then there may be a very difficult case for negligence.

The lights go ember before red. The driver should have had sufficient time to notice an ember, a red or green and act accordingly.

Someone should look into the facts of the case. How fast was she driving? Was she using her mobile phone when the accident occured, as initially charged, but later retracted? What kind of an assistance did she provide to the victims. Were there any witnesses to the accident?

I find this entire matter another nail into the pappies coffin. How silly of them to give up so much for such a petty reporter!

 

[Cestbon]

Who is Michelle Lim and any link to Minister or Lee? Can anyone dig more info for this fucking girl.

 

[miosux]

Itchy to wear your legal hat again eh?

huh?? i only wear hat to protect my di di

 

[nggiaphon]

you lost cause your lawyer failed to lay out the particulars of the implied term of good faith, which was nonetheless excluded by contract. he should have advised you not to fight the case, but he probably wanted to make your money. cost you more than 15-20k?

lawyer very good lah...it's the judiciary which is no good