Search the Community

Anyone has any lawyer to recommend to face dealer for mileage tamper? possible to take it to court under fraud?

One fine and bright sunny Sunday morning, I was heading north as usual for my hobby routine. The roads were usually clear this early in the morning. My right foot feels a bit heavier than usual. The engine wants its horses to be released after a work week of low revs. After passing the two overhead bridge on CTE, the usual candid camera spots, I was going up the flyover on Bradellel. Decided to let the horses out for that momentary stamp on the accelerator hard. On the way down the flyover, forgot to release the accelerator as the pull from the engine was too mesmerising. Within a couple of seconds, a motorbike with flashing blue and red lights was at my side and waved me to stop. I had to adhere to his command and did so. We pulled to the side of the road and he parked behind me. He walked over and asked me to get out of the car and produce my NRIC and driving license. I knew I was caught speeding but I did not know how fast I was caught for. I thought, at most 120km/h. I do not look at the speedometer and drive, I was looking at the road trying to concentrate and look out for other road users as my car cut through the air. While he was radioing back his HQ to check the status of my NRIC and driving license, his accomplice arrived. Immediately, his accomplice asked me how fast I was going. I said I don’t know as I was concentrating driving on the expressway as what any good driver should. He showed me his speed camera display and it showed 143km/h. Goodness me, I was shocked too. He did a mental calculation, then told me I am lucky. Any higher and my license will be revoked. He asked for a reason for going that fast. I said I had no excuse, I was not rushing to anywhere. I plead for him to report a lower speed, but he refused. After checking my records are clean, they told me to leave and expect a summon letter within two weeks. And told me to drive carefully!!! Very chop chop, the stop lasted less than 10mins. Looking backing into my in-car video camera, I did clock 143km/h on the downslope of the flyover. I should have released the accelerator after the upslope. They were stationed between the entrance of Bradellel and exit of AMK Ave 1 on the CTE northbound. Just outside of SMRT depot. That is a busy place, cant believe they had stationed there as I have never encounter them there. One holding the speed camera, another standby at the side of his motorbike. Within two weeks, I really received a registered mail from postman. And I was formerly charged by traffic police for speeding at 143km/h over 90km/h speed limit. There was no composition fine to settle the offence. And at the bottom of the letter I was told to appear in court on a specific date and time. This time, really jia lat liao. Quickly went online to search for forums on what to do. There really isn’t much, the only close reference was in Singapore Bike Forum dated 2010. The fine was $800 to $1,000 with suspension of license from 3 months to 6 months. I asked around my friends, none of them ever encounter such high speeding cases. One friend told me his another friend’s wife kena $1,000 fine and 3 months suspension. Frankly, I am not worried about the fine. I am more worried of the suspension. I need my car for weekend travelling for my hobby. Day to day, I can rely on public transport but for my hobby, which I had advanced into larger scale models, I require a transport. So I decided to look for my MP to appeal to the court for not suspending my license. I am willing to pay the fine and have 18 points deducted as a punishment of my driving. It was a Monday evening when I met my MP, who happens to be the transport minister too(now no more liao), Mr Lui Tuck Yew. The wait was long, about one hour. Then I was met with one of the many volunteers who would write a summary of my request to Mr Lui. He was shocked at the speed I was driving too and he told me that they will not be able to interfere with court proceedings. Only thing they can do is write to traffic police to appeal. I asked how about a personal letter from Mr Lui to the judge which I will hand carry to court. He told me to ask Mr Lui later when I meet him. It was another 30mins before I am allowed to meet my MP. Upon entering the room, Mr Lui stood up, greeted me, extended his hand to shake mine. He listened to my request and politely told me that he is unable to interfere with court proceedings and is unable to write me a personal letter to the judge. He told me he will write to traffic police and try to appeal my case as I have existing medical conditions that having a car would ease my convenience. After that, he told me to take care and drive carefully!!! Prior to seeing Mr Lui, I had already prepared letters from my various specialist stating my medical condition which does not allow me prolong standing. True to his words, Mr Lui indeed wrote to traffic police and appeal my case. I received a letter from traffic police that they will review my case. However, the following week, received a letter back from traffic police that my appeal was unsuccessful and a new court date is set for my case. From here, I knew suspension of my driving license was for sure, but for how long, that will depend on the mood of the judge.

Have you encountered trouble at carpark entries and realised that you needed to have another go with the IU scanner but the car behind is so close that you cant even reverse a tiny bit? We sure have and know how troublesome it is get the car behind to reverse so that you can re do the IU scan. Often, the driver behind refuses to bulge leaving you in an awkward position and frustrated at the driver behind you. Something like this happened on 22nd of October 2020 at Crawford Court between a Prius Trans-Cab and an unknown camera car. However, egos and tempers got the best of them and things turned out ugly. Who was in the wrong? Watch the video as posted by SG Road Vigilante and let us know in the comments below!

Hi, To the fair ladies here, and also those (not so fair ones) of you who have wives/GFs/daughters, even mothers/aunts or female colleagues/friends/classmates/relatives, etc. and who has knowledge of where can buy lady's court shoes that are... big/huge, can you share your knowledge here? My girl needs to get a pair, as required by her course in poly (for some formal presentation), and her legs are bigger than average... Almost all the designs that she's seen (and like), all dun have her size 😓 We've brought her to some neighbourhood malls' shoe shops, and so far no success. Am sure there are such shoes available, so am trying to see whether can get any recommendations here. Bonus if not too expensive too 😅 . Don't think she'll wear it a lot, ha ha... Thanks in advance.

Whoaaaa..this one serious Apex court grants woman's appeal against Changi General Hospital over delay in lung cancer The Court of Appeal on Tuesday (Feb 26) granted a woman her appeal against Changi General Hospital (CGH) for delaying diagnosis of her lung cancer. A High Court judge had dismissed the claims of negligence in February last year, finding that a nodule in one of Ms Noor Azlin Abdul Rahman's lungs had been benign when first detected in 2007. However, the apex court on Tuesday found that CGH was in breach of its duty of care owed to the woman by failing to have in place a proper system for adequate follow-up of radiological results and patient management. This resulted in a delay in diagnosing Ms Azlin with lung cancer, said Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Judges of Appeal Andrew Phang and Judith Prakash. Ms Azlin first visited CGH in 2007, where an X-ray of her chest found opacity. She was referred to specialist respiratory physician Dr Imran Mohamed Noor, who ordered two further X-rays and assessed that the opacity "appeared to be resolving or had resolved on its own". He gave Ms Azlin an open date for a follow-up. The woman went back to CGH twice, seeing two doctors at the Accident & Emergency (A&E) department in April 2010 and July 2011. Advertisement Both times, chest X-rays were performed on Ms Azlin, and the radiologist recommended follow-up for the opacity, but none was carried out. A nodule was found in Ms Azlin's chest by a CGH respiratory physician only after she was referred there by Raffles Medical Clinic in late 2011 for coughing, breathlessness and blood in her phlegm. A biopsy in February 2012 confirmed that the nodule was malignant and she had lung cancer. The cancer progressed to Stage IV in August 2014 and Ms Azlin was found to be suffering from a rare condition known as ALK gene arrangement. By October 2016, the cancer had spread to her brain. Ms Azlin sued CGH and three doctors in January 2015, saying that their negligence delayed the diagnosis and treatment of her lung cancer, causing it to go untreated. Justice Belinda Ang in February last year ruled that the respondents had met the standard of care expected of them. She said Ms Azlin did not have lung cancer, or that the nodule was benign, between October 2007 and July 2011. Moreover, she was treated for her ALK-positive lung cancer at the earliest available time, because drugs approved for such a disease were available for clinical trials in Singapore only in 2013 and 2014 and only for patients suffering late-stage cancer. CGH NEGLIGENT BUT DOCTORS NOT NEGLIGENT, COURT OF APPEAL FINDS The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court judge's decision that the two A&E doctors were not in breach of duty, as an A&E doctor "is not expected to conduct a general health screening". Instead, his priority is to resolve the patient's presenting complaints - in this case Ms Azlin's chest pains. The apex court also agreed with the High Court judge's ruling that the first CGH doctor Ms Azlin had seen - Dr Imran - had breached his duty of care for failing to schedule a follow-up appointment, even though he was uncertain that the opacity in Ms Azlin's chest had resolved completely. Although the judges found none of the doctors liable in negligence, they found that "CGH’s negligence caused a significant delay of at least seven months in diagnosis". According to the appeal judges, the patient management system at CGH resulted in Ms Azlin, who had a persistent nodule in her lung, being seen by only one respiratory specialist over four years. The system CGH had to review radiological reports was "inadequate" because it did not allow comprehensive management of patients, with "no appropriate mechanism for the consolidation of what was already known". That is, each time Ms Azlin went to the A&E department, and each time a radiological report on her nodule was prepared, it was seemingly "treated as an isolated incident". The A&E doctors did not have access to Dr Imran's notes, as his consultation with Ms Azlin had not been at A&E. "CGH did not have a practice of sending its patients the report and test results from the scans conducted at the hospital," said the judges. "It was plainly unreasonable for CGH to rely on the patient's account of what happened at consultations outside of the A&E department. "If the A&E doctor reviewing the radiological report had checked against Dr Imran’s notes, for example, it would have become immediately obvious to him that the only specialist who had seen her over the past four years had mistakenly concluded that the opacity was resolving or had resolved," said the judges. The A&E doctor would have concluded that "the nodule had been persistent and had not been properly assessed by a specialist", they said. The judges said an amicable settlement would allow Ms Azlin "to focus on battling her cancer and recovering as best as she can", saying it would be "appropriate for CGH to consider the possibility of a settlement in the interests of expediency and resolution". The Court of Appeal judges have reserved costs and referred the question of loss and damages back to the High Court judge. Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/changi-general-hospital-lawsuit-lung-cancer-delay-diagnosis-11289948

The towkay is said to be a very young fellow Doc takes company boss go to court over parking dispute Yet another case of road rage. This one involves a doctor and a managing director of a company over a parking space. The incident happened on June 22 along the restaurants that line Upper Thomson Road. The medical professional, who wanted to be known only as Dr Goh, was reversing his Nissan Latio into a parking space when another car appeared from behind and kept inching forward. Dr Goh managed to park, but said the Lexus drove up beside them and started gesturing at him very aggressively before driving off. Shortly after Dr Goh exited the car, he claimed that the driver of the Lexus walked over to his car and ripped off its right side mirror, leaving it dangling. Dr Goh made a police report about the incident and has also filed a Magistrate's Complaint against the other driver as advised by the police. When contacted, the other driver declined to comment. Both drivers will appear before a judge at the Subordinate Courts next Wednesday.

Apple fined millions by Australian court for misleading customers over faulty iPhones SYDNEY: Apple was Tuesday fined Aus$9 million (US$6.7 million) by an Australian court for making false claims about consumer rights when refusing to fix faulty iPhones and iPads previously repaired by a third party. Customers of the US tech giant had complained to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) after an operating system update disabled their devices in a global issue known as "error 53". The users were told by Apple that they were not eligible for a remedy if the iPhone or iPad had been repaired by another company. The ACCC took Apple to the Federal Court last year over allegedly false or misleading representations to customers with faulty iPhones and iPads about their rights under the law. "If a product is faulty, customers are legally entitled to a repair or a replacement under the Australian Consumer Law, and sometimes even a refund," ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court said in a statement. "The court declared the mere fact that an iPhone or iPad had been repaired by someone other than Apple did not, and could not, result in the consumer guarantees ceasing to apply, or the consumer's right to a remedy being extinguished." Apple admitted misleading at least 275 Australian customers over the issue between February 2015 to February 2016 on its US website, by its Australian store staff and on its customer service phone calls. The consumer watchdog said Apple had also committed to providing new devices as replacements, after allegations that the company was giving customers refurbished goods instead after a device suffered a major failure. There was no immediate comment from Apple, which has previously described the error as appearing "when a device fails a security test". It has released an operating system update to fix the issue.

Received this summon in JB for turning into a single direction road and was asked to appear in court for this offence. Have anyone encountered this before? Not sure if the offense stated is correct, don't understand Malay language. Any valuable advice? Do I really have to appear in court?

Long story short, was in an accident more than 1 year ago . Car insurance lawyers cannot settle with the other party, now i have to go court. I have never encounter such things b4, normally insurance will be able to settle. Smore it was a minor accident where the guy tried to overtake me fr the right on a single lane road when i wanted to turn right. Anyone have such experience in court? Dunno wat i must do and lawyers did not even provide any advise

Taxi rider who did not do so promptly shares 15% of liability for her injuries, court hears http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/passengers-belt-up-quickly-or-else A cab passenger who was fastening her seat belt as the vehicle was moving off will share the blame for the serious injuries she suffered when the taxi and another vehicle were involved in a collision just 20 seconds into the ride. Dr Ishkawa Natsuko, 38, suffered skull, spinal and facial fractures and was taken to the Singapore General Hospital after the March 2012 accident. She stayed there for two weeks. The Singaporean is seeking compensation for medical expenses and treatment, loss of earnings and other items. She accepted 15 per cent liability in a negligence suit she filed in the High Court against cabby Goh Peng Choon and the driver of the other vehicle. Vehicle insurers initially resisted her claims, saying she was to blame wholly or partly for not fastening the seat belt before setting off. The novel case would help to settle the issue of when the liability to ensure seat belt use kicks in - when the car is stationary or when it is in motion. Under the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Wearing of Seat Belts) Rules 2011, the driver of a car has to ensure that every passenger is belted up, with some exceptions, such as medical cases. All three witnesses testified on the first day of the trial earlier this year before Judicial Commissioner Foo Tuat Yien ended it the next day, when the parties agreed between themselves that they would apportion blame by mutual consent. Dr Natsuko was fastening her seat belt after settling her things in the back seat when the collision took place, her lawyer Renuka Chettiar said in court papers. It is understood that the parties inspected the route taken by the cab driver after picking up Dr Natsuko from Leonie Hill and making a right turn into River Valley Road, where the collision occurred. Given that the cab did not speed off after picking her up and was slowed by the turn it made, it is believed there would have been time for Dr Natsuko to fasten the seat belt while the vehicle was moving, and this would have been factored into the deliberations. Lawyer Anthony Wee, who defended Mr Goh on behalf of the vehicle insurers, said the other motorist had contributed to the collision by failing to keep a proper lookout. Mr Christopher Fernandez, who represented the second defendant, Mr Low Ka Hoe, countered that the cabby was to blame for failing to give way when coming out of a minor road onto a major road. As there were no local precedents in this area, it is understood that cases from abroad - which suggested a 10 per cent to 20 per cent contributory blame on the injured party - were considered. In a 1975 English case, Lord Justice Alfred Denning ruled that if the injuries could be prevented altogether by the use of a seat belt, then the damages payable should be reduced by 25 per cent. If the failure to wear a seat belt made a considerable difference, then the damages should be cut by 15 per cent. But if the injuries would have been the same if a seat belt had been worn, then the damages payable should not be reduced at all. That case has been cited, with modifications, as a standard reference in several Commonwealth countries such as Australia and Canada. According to the judgment order issued by the judicial commissioner, both defendants agreed to bear 85 per cent of the damages payable to Dr Natsuko. Of this 85 per cent liability, Mr Goh would bear 85 per cent of the share, while Mr Low would bear 15 per cent. The case has now proceeded to assess the amount of damages payable to Dr Natsuko, who is seeking more than $300,000. A High Court case-management conference was held last month.

This morning witnessed the start of a fallen tree event along Marine Parade Road just outside Neptune Court. As the attached pictures showed, the tree blocked all the 3 lanes. As I walked along to Still Road to catch the connecting bus, managed to alert fellow commuters waiting in the next 2 bus-stops about the fallen tree. It was not easy for me to do it, but I did not think I could forgive myself for withholding the information so I did it anyway. Felt good. I hope all would do like-wise when face with similar situation. But looking at the root of the fallen tree really make me worried, as to how it could break so easily. Could be due to thunder storm the last few days? With the monsoon season arriving, we should be expecting more of such events.

Hi All, Would like to ask if it is possible to request for installment payment for outstanding traffic fines which has been referred to sub court. If possible, where can i go to to or contact, to request for installment payment? Thanks

Court punishes Hewlett-Packard for under paying sales rep……. SINGAPORE — A retrenched sales product specialist with IT firm Hewlett-Packard (HP) is entitled to about S$600,000 in incentives for winning back a client, the High Court has ruled. In a judgment made public today (Aug 5), Judicial Commissioner Edmund Leow ruled that Ms Corinna Chin Shu Hwa had helped win back electronic payments provider NETS as a customer for the Singapore subsidiary of HP, and the contract fell within the definition of “new business” for HP. NETS was a HP customer but decided in late 2010 to buy IBM servers. The platform-migration process ran into problems and Ms Chin and her colleagues tried to woo NETS back in 2011 by, among other things, refusing to extend maintenance services for the existing servers unless NETS inked a new contract with HP. This put pressure on NETS’ planned migration to the IBM servers, and it eventually ordered new HP servers in a March 2012 contract worth about S$5.38 million. HP had argued that the NETS contract failed to meet the criteria for new business, and paid Ms Chin S$229,370.60 in incentives when it retrenched her in June 2012. JC Leow ruled that HP’s meaning of “new end user customer” – part of how sales specialists’ performances were assessed from November 2011 – was ambiguous. The justice of the case demands that the company bear the risk of this ambiguity, he added. “In terms of sales, NETS had been lost as a customer” when it decided to buy IBM servers in late 2010, the judge wrote. Although NETS’ platform migration was from existing HP servers to new HP ones, it was because NETS was won back as a customer before the migration process was complete, and was hence not a “technology refresh contract”, JC Leow noted. “Therefore, NETS was a ‘win back’ – i.e. a new end user customer – when it signed a contract for HP’s NonStop Blades servers in March 2012”, and was considered “new business”, he ruled. And as Ms Chin was involuntarily terminated in June 2012 before the end of HP’s financial year, the calculation of her incentive pay should be on a pro-rated basis rather than a full-year basis, JC Leow said. http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/court-orders-hewlett-packard-pay-retrenched-sales-specialist-about-s627000 http://www.stjobs.sg/career-resources/money-matters/former-exec-sues-hp-for-more-than-600000/a/159351

in term variety and price, can share which food court you most prefer? so far, i like most yishun, northpoint foodcourt at basement 3. second is amk hub foodcourt at level 3 or 4 (i forget)

Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/courts-crime/story/man-has-help-maintain-illegitimate-child-court-20150523 Somehow, doesn't feel fair to the man at all.

Malaysian Court awards RM351,000 to children of car repossessor allegedly shot by police http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2014/10/08/Court-awards-children-of-car-repossessor/ PUTRAJAYA: Three daughters of a man who was allegedly shot dead by police, were awarded a sum of RM351,000 in damages by the Court of Appeal which allowed their claim for loss of dependency due to the wrongful death of their father. A three-member panel led by Justice Datuk Linton Albert unanimously allowed the appeal brought by the three girls, Nurasmira Maulat Abdul Jaffar, Siti Asma Abdul Jaffar and Siti Fatimah Abdul Jaffar, to reverse a High Court’s dismissal of their civil suit against the Inspector-General of Police, the Government and a police officer, ASP Ong Seng Keong. The two other judges were Datuk Hamid Sultan Abu Backer and Vernon Ong Lam Kiat. “The police are paid through public funds with a primary duty to arrest criminals and put them for trial. They cannot be allowed to roam trigger happy as this will be in violation of the rule of law and the relevant authorities must seriously check such violations,” Justice Hamid said in his 31-page judgment. “It is trite that the police force has not been endowed with ‘executioner’ powers in the pretext of self-defence,” he said. The panel awarded RM51,000 in damages for loss of dependency and RM300,000 in exemplary damages, as well as RM50,000 in costs for the proceedings at the Court of Appeal and High Court to the girls aged 15, 8 and 7 years who through their mother, Abra Bibi Shahul Hamid, brought the suit against the police for allegedly causing the wrongful death of their father, Abdul Jaafar Abdul Mutalib, 38. “What is reprehensible and needs to be condemned are fake encounters as the facts of the instant case shows prima facie and the failure of the relevant authorities to discipline such officers and worse still, claim self-defence under the Police Act which has no relevancy to the killing,” Justice Hamid added. He said the senior federal counsel who represented the respondents had also failed to bring to the court’s attention any law that giving powers to the police and the right to shoot on sight or any law relating to self-defence or fulfilment of any Special Operating Procedure. “Section 24 of the Police Act 1967 has nothing to do with self-defence to exonerate liability from unlawful killing,” he said, adding that this section also did not give the police any power to kill. Justice Hamid said the courts had a constitutional duty to deal with “police excesses” and to provide the necessary input or directions for appropriate action by the relevant authorities to ensure the rule of law was maintained at all times. In the incident, the deceased, a car repossessor, was sitting in the front passenger seat of a Proton Waja when the car and another vehicle were ambushed by two police Special Action Force teams near a petrol station in Batu 3, Shah Alam on Sept 2, 2008 which claimed the cars had been travelling in a “suspicious manner”. The police, however, said they had opened fire in self-defence after shots were fired at them from the direction of the Proton Waja, causing the death of the deceased who sustained six gunshot wounds, and three other persons who were also in the car. The police did not dispute the killing but had said it was done in defence and had relied on Section 24 (1)(b) of the Police Act, which states that any police officer may stop and search without warrant any vehicle or vessel which he has reasonable grounds for suspecting is being used in the commission of any offence against any law in force. Counsel V. Rajadevan who represented the girls had submitted that the police should not have fatally shot the deceased, instead they should have arrested him and charged him in court if he was found to have committed any offence. They filed the civil suit in 2009 and the High Court dismissed it last year. The respondents were represented by senior federal counsel Habibah Haron. – Bernama

Wa lao... Still can smile somemore. http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/istana-site-hacking-businessman-charged-unauthorised-modification-webp Businessman Delson Moo was charged in court on Friday with two counts of unauthorised modification of computer material under the Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity Act. This is in relation to the recent hacking of an Istana webpage on Nov 8. Moo had allegedly intruded into the website twice at 12.34am that night through its search function and modified the code to cause the site to display a picture of an old woman pointing her middle finger, along with a string of offensive words in Hokkien. The case against the 42-year-old has been stood down until 2.30pm, to allow time for a decision to be made after he requested for the court's permission to leave the country from Dec 4 to Dec 8. Student Melvin Teo, the second suspect reportedly linked to the cyber intrusion of the Istana website, is expected to appear in court at the same time to face charges. The 17-year-old's name was not indicated in the charges against Moo. Moo, who remains on $10,000 bail, arrived at the court earlier at about 9.15 am. He was accompanied by a woman, believed to be his wife, and lawyer M. Ravi. Mr Ravi is also representing James Raj Arokiasamy, whom court documents previously identified as the alleged hacker who used "The Messiah" pseudonym. The 35-year-old accused of hacking the Ang Mo Kio Town Council website has been remanded for further investigations. Police had said previously that the ases against Moo and Melvin are not linked to James Raj, who also faces drug offences committed in 2011.

Saw the news today. Now worry abt our kids in school, with more educators found guitly of sexual offences. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/former-river-valley-high/1268322.html

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/former-law-professor-seeks-court-order-to-return-to-nus-163336934.html I think no case You all think got case?

what do you guys think of this development? i personally feel that it's a change in the positive direction, considering the gravity of the consequence, i.e. death. having said that, it's fair to say that there'll also be those situations where, e.g. the jaywalker's gross negligence may be the primary cause of his/her own death and it has to be then investigated and proven in court. p/s - a car cam is becoming more important - i got to stop procrastinating and get the damn thing installed. ------------------------------------------ Court: No more default fines for negligent drivers 20/05/2014 on mypaper http://news.omy.sg/News/Local-News/story20140520-264376 A SPECIAL court of three judges, led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, yesterday overthrew a longstanding sentencing practice of imposing fines for causing death by negligent driving. "It is important to signal to other drivers that they must be mindful of the terrible risks they take upon themselves and other road users when they drive when not fit to do so," said CJ Menon. The court made the ruling as it allowed the prosecution's appeal and handed down a four-week jail term to 27-year-old Hue An Li, a sleep-deprived driver who crashed her car into a lorry carrying foreign workers in March last year. The impact caused all nine workers seated in the back to be flung out, killing one on the spot. Last September, Hue, a casino surveillance officer, pleaded guilty to causing death by a negligent act and was fined the maximum $10,000 and banned from driving for five years. The prosecution appealed to the High Court, arguing that she should be jailed for her "gross negligence" in driving after she had not slept in 24 hours. Under the law, the offence carries a jail term of up to two years, or a fine, or both. But, generally, the courts have imposed fines. In a 1993 case, former CJ Yong Pung How ruled that if death was caused by a negligent act, a fine would suffice in most cases. In Hue's case, the district judge, explaining why he gave her a fine instead of jail, cited the 2012 case of Ng Jui Chuan, who fell asleep at the wheel and hit an elderly couple in Upper Thomson Road in November 2009. Mr Ng's $9,500 fine was upheld by a High Court judge, who said that driving when one is tired or sleepy is not an offence, but might be one if it had been proved that the tired driver knew he would likely fall asleep at the wheel, and yet drove. But, yesterday, CJ Menon said these cases have to be viewed with caution and that the sentencing precedents were "unreliable". He noted that the law was redrafted in 2008. After this, he said, there was no basis to continue on the premise that when death was caused by negligence, the default sentence is a fine. As for the case of Mr Ng, CJ Menon said this should not be seen as an appropriate sentencing precedent as the remarks of the High Court were in the context of the line between a rash and a negligent act. The appeal, heard yesterday by the Chief Justice, Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin and Judicial Commissioner Tan Siong Thye, was the first magistrate's appeal presided over by three judges instead of the usual one judge. [email protected]

http://youtu.be/OAfyY6AAH1A What is this man?? Picking bones in eggs?? AMK central also got 1. Why nobody complain abt dat??

This article appeared in the papers today. Quite unusual, NEA had to go to court to ACQUIT the company they wanted to charge..... http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/headlinesnews/37420-nea-asks-court-to-acquit-firm-booked-over-toxic-material.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&utm_medium=rss NEA asks court to 'acquit' firm booked over 'toxic' material THE National Environment Agency (NEA) has asked a court to effectively acquit a firm that the agency had booked last year for moving harmful material illegally. Galaxy Logistics had faced a fine of up to $30,000 for transporting a hazardous chemical outside approved hours. Without elaborating, the NEA prosecutor had asked a district court on Feb 5 to grant Galaxy a discharge amounting to an acquittal. In reply to queries from The Straits Times, NEA said an offence involving a few parties had been committed as hazardous substances were found to have been transported outside stipulated hours. NEA did not specify who the other parties were but said: "Galaxy Logistics was charged for its role in the offence but NEA has withdrawn the charge based on further evidence. NEA is continuing with its investigations and will take appropriate legal action. Public safety remains our paramount concern." However, Galaxy's defence counsel Christopher Bridges said he did not produce any new evidence in the pre-trial conferences. Instead, he had argued that the prosecution had not been able to provide any legislation that specifically stated that the chemical transported was a hazardous material. According to court documents, Galaxy was transporting a detergent known as Divosan Active SU 388 VTS in a truck along Pioneer Road just past midnight on Oct 2, 2012. The detergent contains peracetic acid, which NEA said was hazardous. NEA issued a summons to the firm in May last year for moving the material outside the prescribed hours of between 7am and 7pm. Galaxy was alleged to have committed an offence as NEA said peracetic acid was listed as hazardous in the Second Schedule of the Environmental Protection and Management Act (EPMA) as well as the Schedule of Environmental Protection and Management (Hazardous Substances) Regulations. However, Mr Bridges said there was no reference to peracetic acid in both lists. He also said it would be unreasonable to read "organic peroxides" in the EPMA to include all types of organic peroxides. There were different classes of organic peroxides and "it would not be Parliament's intention to include non-hazardous organic peroxides into the purview of the regulations and the EPMA", he said. The charge was "too arbitrary and hence defective as peracetic acid is not clearly and explicitly listed... as a hazardous substance", he added.

Does locking one room mean you dun have to stay in the flat? http://sg.news.yahoo.com/flat-owner-takes-...41--sector.html

Guys, Be careful when u speed. I got a speeding summon 1-20km/hr $130 4 points at Napier road. The another letter came saying that I maybe persecuted in court. This makes no sense, if I really wanted to speed... I would go way faster than that. Also how can the law summon me and doesn't tell me the speed I am going at?

Summons filed to order PM Lee to court hearing on by-election http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporesc...-102601051.html In yet another twist to the court case over the Prime Minister's (PM) discretionary powers to call by-elections, the Attorney General's Chambers (AGC) has filed an application to dismiss the application by Hougang resident Vellama Marie Muthu. Vellama had sought the court to order the PM to call a by-election in Hougang within three months or any such time as the court deems fit. She also asked the court to declare that the PM does not have "unfettered discretion" in deciding whether and when to call by-elections. The AGC's press release on Thursday said Vellama's application is "frivolous or vexatious and/or an abuse of the process of the court". The AGC added: "Given the calling of the by-election on May 9, and the by-election on May 26, the AGC maintains the view that the entire substratum of the proceedings has gone and it would be an abuse of the process of court for the plaintiff to continue the proceedings." This latest twist comes after the AGC itself had withdrawn its appeal