Ong Sock Hung v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Intimidation and Admissibility of Evidence

Ong Sock Hung appealed to the High Court of Singapore against her conviction in the District Court for criminal intimidation of Yak Hong Chia, her neighbor. The prosecution alleged that Ong threatened Yak with a chopper, which Ong denied. Yong Pung How CJ dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge did not err in relying on the evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses and that the identification of Ong as the perpetrator was sufficiently established.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Ong Sock Hung appeals conviction for criminal intimidation. The High Court dismisses the appeal, finding the trial judge did not err in relying on prosecution evidence.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyConviction UpheldWon
Tan Kiat Pheng of Deputy Public Prosecutor
Ong Sock HungAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Yong Pung HowChief JusticeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Tan Kiat PhengDeputy Public Prosecutor
Lim Joo ToonJoo Toon and Co
Foo Cheow MingKhattar Wong and Partners

4. Facts

  1. Ong Sock Hung and Yak Hong Chia were neighbors.
  2. There was a long and acrimonious dispute between Ong and Yak’s family.
  3. Yak heard Ong complaining about smells as she made her way down the staircase.
  4. Yak saw a person brandishing a chopper towards her flat and uttering threats.
  5. Yak recognized the voice to be that of Ong.
  6. Police seized a chopper and two knives from Ong’s house.
  7. Ong denied the allegations and claimed she was sleeping at the time of the incident.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Ong Sock Hung v Public Prosecutor, MA 159/2004, [2005] SGHC 95
  2. Ong Sock Hung v Public Prosecutor, , [2005] SGDC 57

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Criminal intimidation occurred.
Yak Hong Chia called the police.
Police seized a chopper and two knives from Ong Sock Hung’s house.
Ong Sock Hung was arrested.
Ong Sock Hung felt the walls of her flat warming up and cooling down.
Tan Soo Chor went to Ong Sock Hung’s flat to resolve the dispute.
Appeal dismissed.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Criminal Intimidation
    • Outcome: The court found that the appellant committed criminal intimidation.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Whether appellant was person waving chopper and uttering threats
      • Whether threat directed at victim
  2. Admissibility of Evidence
    • Outcome: The court held that the trial judge did not err in admitting certain evidence.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Similar fact evidence
      • Character evidence
  3. Identification Evidence
    • Outcome: The court found that the identification of the appellant was sufficiently established.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Weight of Evidence
    • Outcome: The court found that the trial judge was justified in relying on evidence given by certain witnesses.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against conviction
  2. Dismissal of charge

9. Cause of Actions

  • Criminal Intimidation

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Lim Ah Poh v PPHigh CourtYes[1992] 1 SLR 713SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court will be slow to disturb a lower court’s findings of fact unless they are plainly wrong or against the weight of the evidence.
Dong Guitian v PPHigh CourtYes[2004] 3 SLR 34SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court will be slow to disturb a lower court’s findings of fact unless they are plainly wrong or against the weight of the evidence.
PP v Azman bin AbdullahHigh CourtYes[1998] 2 SLR 704SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court may reverse findings of fact only if it is convinced that the findings are wrong, and not merely because it entertains doubts as to whether the decision is right.
Yap Giau Beng Terence v PPHigh CourtYes[1998] 3 SLR 656SingaporeCited for the principle that the appellate judge is as competent as any trial judge to draw any necessary inferences of fact from the circumstances of the case.
Ng Kwee Leong v PPHigh CourtYes[1998] 3 SLR 942SingaporeCited for the principle that the trial judge is perfectly entitled to find that the discrepancies do not detract from the general veracity of the prosecution witness on the material issues.
Kuek Ah Lek v PPHigh CourtYes[1995] 3 SLR 252SingaporeCited for the principle that the testimony has to be so compelling to the extent that a conviction might be based solely on it.
Yeo Eng Siang v PPHigh CourtYes[2005] SGHC 47SingaporeCited for the principle that the testimony has to be so compelling to the extent that a conviction might be based solely on it.
Heng Aik Ren Thomas v PPHigh CourtYes[1998] 3 SLR 465SingaporeCited for the guidelines for the assessment of identification evidence.
Phua Song Hua v PPHigh CourtYes[2004] SGHC 33SingaporeCited for the guidelines for the assessment of identification evidence.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Section 506 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Criminal intimidation
  • Chopper
  • Threat
  • Identification evidence
  • Similar fact evidence
  • Delusional disorder

15.2 Keywords

  • Criminal Intimidation
  • Singapore
  • High Court
  • Appeal
  • Evidence
  • Threat
  • Chopper

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Criminal Intimidation95
Criminal Law90
Evidence Law70
Contract Law10

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Evidence
  • Criminal Procedure