Chung Wan v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Conviction for Voluntarily Causing Hurt

Chung Wan appealed to the High Court of Singapore against his conviction and sentence for voluntarily causing hurt to a taxi driver, following a trial in the District Court. The High Court, presided over by Aedit Abdullah J, dismissed both appeals, finding that the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that there was no excessive judicial interference during the trial. The court upheld the original sentence of four weeks' imprisonment.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Chung Wan appeals conviction for voluntarily causing hurt to a taxi driver. The High Court dismisses the appeal, finding no excessive judicial interference.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyAppeal DismissedWon
Seah Ee Wei of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Peggy Pao of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Chung WanAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Aedit AbdullahJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Seah Ee WeiAttorney-General’s Chambers
Peggy PaoAttorney-General’s Chambers
Derek Kang Yu HsienCairnhill Law LLC
Ammar LullaCairnhill Law LLC

4. Facts

  1. The appellant was convicted of voluntarily causing hurt to a taxi driver.
  2. The appellant allegedly slapped the complainant, a taxi driver, after an argument.
  3. A passer-by, Yussaini, testified that he witnessed the appellant slapping the complainant.
  4. The complainant sought medical treatment and was diagnosed with a contusion of face.
  5. The appellant gave inconsistent versions of the incident.
  6. The appellant was voluntarily intoxicated at the time of the offence.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Chung Wan v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9238 of 2018, [2019] SGHC 186
  2. Public Prosecutor v Chung Wan, , [2019] SGMC 9

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Appellant boarded complainant’s taxi.
Complainant called the police.
Appellant called the police.
Trial began.
Trial continued.
Appellant's submissions dated.
Arguments heard.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Voluntarily Causing Hurt
    • Outcome: The court upheld the conviction for voluntarily causing hurt.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Excessive Judicial Interference
    • Outcome: The court found that no excessive judicial interference had occurred at the trial.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2018] 2 SLR 1156
  3. Admissibility of Fresh Evidence
    • Outcome: The court allowed some fresh evidence to be adduced but disallowed other evidence.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1954] 1 WLR 1489
      • [2014] 3 SLR 299

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against conviction
  2. Appeal against sentence

9. Cause of Actions

  • Voluntarily Causing Hurt

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • Transportation

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Wong Hoi Len v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2009] 1 SLR(R) 115SingaporeEstablished a four-week sentencing benchmark for a simple assault against a public transport worker.
Soh Meiyun v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2014] 3 SLR 299SingaporeAffirmed the principles in Ladd v Marshall regarding the admissibility of fresh evidence.
Ladd v MarshallCourt of AppealYes[1954] 1 WLR 1489England and WalesEstablished the requirements for adducing fresh evidence in an appeal.
XP v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 686SingaporeCited regarding the standard of proof required when there is a lack of corroborative evidence.
BOI v BOJCourt of AppealYes[2018] 2 SLR 1156SingaporeCited regarding the principles to be applied when considering if excessive judicial interference has occurred.
Haliffie bin Mamat v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2016] 5 SLR 636SingaporeCited regarding the treatment of subsequent complaints as corroboration.
Pram Nair v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2017] 2 SLR 1015SingaporeCited regarding the circumstances in which appellate intervention is called for.
Public Prosecutor v UIHigh CourtYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 500SingaporeCited regarding the circumstances in which an appellate court will disturb a sentence imposed.
Lee Kwang Peng v Public Prosecutor and another appealHigh CourtYes[1997] 2 SLR(R) 569SingaporeDiscussed the concept of innocent infection.
Kwek Seow Hock v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2011] 3 SLR 157SingaporeCited regarding drawing an adverse inference.
Mohammed Ali bin Johari v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 1058SingaporeCited regarding the principles to be applied when considering if excessive judicial interference has occurred.
Gan Chai Bee Anne v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2019] SGHC 42SingaporeCited regarding sentencing discount.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 323Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) ss 47(1) and 47(2)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 22Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Voluntarily causing hurt
  • Excessive judicial interference
  • Fresh evidence
  • Contamination of evidence
  • Sentencing benchmark
  • Intoxication

15.2 Keywords

  • Criminal law
  • Voluntarily causing hurt
  • Appeal
  • Singapore
  • Taxi driver
  • Judicial interference

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Criminal Law90
Sentencing90
Administrative Law60
Natural justice50
Civil Procedure50
Excessive judicial interference40

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Sentencing
  • Evidence
  • Appeals