Wah...flirt with judge

[Singhao]

To me, it is a case of hit and run.

 

If she really thought it was a tree trunk that she hit, why wouldn't she stop to inspect the damage? It's not like she was unable to stop the car (early morning and traffic was light/minimal). The windscreen is cracked for goodness sake.

 

I would have stopped to check what happened, wouldn't you?

 

As she did not stop, it is clear to me that she was afraid of something, and that something to me is the realisation that she hit a person.

 

What she did after she return home, the intention to report, calling the authorities immediately is irrelevant.

 

 

[Superyandao]

lady driver lady judge.

 

the defense say that under the shade the canopy of trees she might not be able to see if is tee branch or what.

 

but what about looking into the rear view mirror? can't see a rolling human body? malay victim dark skin cannot see? valid? even before hitting, the car headlight will throw some distance, even to the sides. can't see?

 

i think the lady driver is lacking in judgement and road sense and should be taken off the road. she deserve a disqualification.

 

[Felipe]

judgments should be based on facts not assumptions. We are only assuming she thinks it's a branch but we can't prove it. but what we can prove is she def hit someone and did not stop. Which judge ever give verdict based on assumptions???

[Timex1441]

Just as a mental game, if you were the judge, would you look at these important questions/doubts that have not been addressed:

(1) The windscreen was cracked/shattered...most drivers would have stopped the car to check the damage...and is it safe to continue driving with low visibility due to the damaged windscreen?...how big a tree branch would have to be in order to do that kind of damage?

(2) Why didn't the driver see the cyclist? Did she turn on her headlights? Did the bicycle have rear reflector?

(3) "...the shadows cast from the canopy of trees would have had on impact on her line of sight resulting in her mistaken assumption..."....the trees there are pretty tall, but are there really shadows, bearing in mind that Singapore streets are well-lit.

(4) Whether it's due to sleepiness or alcohol (no proof), the driver's state of mind was unsuitable for driving....why didn't the driver refrain from driving or drive even slower (60 km/h is pretty fast driving for someone not in full control of the mental faculty)?

 

Considering all the above, there's no way I would have given a light sentence. Regardless of what the driver ASSUMED (or claimed to have assumed), it is a hit and run accident, and a more appropriate sentence should be 1-day jail plus $10,000 fine plus a driving ban of 3 years.

 

OK, don't flame me....that was just my mental game.

 

[Ladykillerz]

For those who would like more info, here's what the judge wrote:

http://lwb.lawnet.com.sg/legal/lgl/rss/subcourts/11570.html

 

good info.

but if i were the judge, i will consider this as a "hit-and-run" case.

actually, i find there are some loopholes to confirm my assumption.

but then again, i am not the judge. ;-)

[Ferraricalifornia]

she will come out with another excuse that the place she was in then wasn't well lit....

[Jman888]

obviously too drunk to stop and aware of the surrounding, lets hope she meet a tree trunk, I mean branch one more time ....

[Guniang]

nxt morning 8am....blood test wun show any alcohol?? will someone enlighten me??

[Cyberet]

Cleopatra...

 

 

 

[Timex1441]

nxt morning 8am....blood test wun show any alcohol?? will someone enlighten me??

 

From 5am to 8 am (the time at which the police towed the car), 3 hours might not have reduced blood alcohol concentration by a lot, so the police should have made the driver do a breath test then. (even if she's sleeping, just wake her up, becos this is a serious accident).

[Topgun]

theres really no proof she was drunk or anything. but hit and run should've been more severely dealt with.

 

but the cyclist can claim her kao kao.

 

I think the cyclist can take up a case aganst the court too...

 

But if victim is poor or foregn worker then suck thumb lor

 

[Grindcore888]

we have to agree the justice & rules are 'bent' to accommodate the 'very well-connected'

 

wondered is she was coach to provide 'hit tree branch'..

 

bottomline

 

'Cleopatra' is a white horse

[Jasonjst]

knn , if lowee driver said they same sure nobody belive. Kana lagi jilat for liar ..

[Kiadaw]

So things to highlight from the case from the female judge

 

Antecedents and Mitigation

 

4 The Accused is a first offender.

 

 

8 It was apparent the cyclist unfortunately cycled in the middle of the road without appreciating the risks he was taking against all the lurking dangers he could encounter.

 

Why is it apparent? No details to support.

 

 

11 The Accused was a school teacher at the time of the accident. She is married and has a son. She is residing with her family at 28 Ming Teck Road. She delivered her first child on 1 December 2009. After the delivery of her child, she resigned after six years of teaching in order to look after her infant son in December 2009. She intends to return to teaching from beginning of 2011. A copy of a testimonial prepared by her former Head of English Department was annexed at reference.

 

12 The Accused is still breast-feeding her son.

 

What have point 11 & 12 have to do with the case. So if she is breastfeeding her son then, she can skip jail term?

 

 

13 It was further submitted that the Accused had gone to Zouk to look for her cousin Charlene Tan as she had not returned home. Charlene

[Scoots]

If she really was guilty of drunk driving, plus the hit-and-run (more like hit-and-bochup), it worries me that she's working as a teacher....

 

Even if she's not drunk, her ability to mistake a motorcycle, while sober (presumeably), as a tree trunk also worries me that she's working as a teacher ....

 

btw, teacher pay so good ah?.... drive 3000cc car wor

[Scoots]

Just as a mental game, if you were the judge, would you look at these important questions/doubts that have not been addressed:

(1) The windscreen was cracked/shattered...most drivers would have stopped the car to check the damage...and is it safe to continue driving with low visibility due to the damaged windscreen?...how big a tree branch would have to be in order to do that kind of damage?

(2) Why didn't the driver see the cyclist? Did she turn on her headlights? Did the bicycle have rear reflector?

(3) "...the shadows cast from the canopy of trees would have had on impact on her line of sight resulting in her mistaken assumption..."....the trees there are pretty tall, but are there really shadows, bearing in mind that Singapore streets are well-lit.

(4) Whether it's due to sleepiness or alcohol (no proof), the driver's state of mind was unsuitable for driving....why didn't the driver refrain from driving or drive even slower (60 km/h is pretty fast driving for someone not in full control of the mental faculty)?

 

Considering all the above, there's no way I would have given a light sentence. Regardless of what the driver ASSUMED (or claimed to have assumed), it is a hit and run accident, and a more appropriate sentence should be 1-day jail plus $10,000 fine plus a driving ban of 3 years.

 

OK, don't flame me....that was just my mental game.

 

Ya lor...how can there be an allowance for assumption to reduce the severity of the crime?....Then like that all rapaists can assume that the victim was willing so there's no rape?...

 

A judge who simply ignore the facts is either

 

1. Poor judge (in assessment)

2. passing sentence with (too much?) compassion (again a poor judge)

3. Somehow connected to the accused or the accused is 'connected'

 

take your pic

Edited September 29, 2010 by Scoots

[Kiadaw]

Even if she's not drunk, her ability to mistake a motorcycle, while sober (presumeably), as a tree trunk also worries me that she's working as a teacher ....

 

btw, teacher pay so good ah?.... drive 3000cc car wor

 

Dad's car.

 

She is married and has a son. She is residing with her family at 28 Ming Teck Road. She delivered her first child on 1 December 2009. After the delivery of her child, she resigned after six years of teaching in order to look after her infant son in December 2009. She intends to return to teaching from beginning of 2011. A copy of a testimonial prepared by her former Head of English Department was annexed at reference.

 

The Accused is still breast-feeding her son.

 

Yes, these details are input inside the Judge statement. However, not much details on the actual accident, & how she deduce the words of the accuse, & victim, & the investigation of the accident.

[Tigerwoods]

Dad's car.

 

She is married and has a son. She is residing with her family at 28 Ming Teck Road. She delivered her first child on 1 December 2009. After the delivery of her child, she resigned after six years of teaching in order to look after her infant son in December 2009. She intends to return to teaching from beginning of 2011. A copy of a testimonial prepared by her former Head of English Department was annexed at reference.

 

The Accused is still breast-feeding her son.

 

Yes, these details are input inside the Judge statement. However, not much details on the actual accident, & how she deduce the words of the accuse, & victim, & the investigation of the accident.

The Judge thought that since the Accused is BREASTFEEDING , she would not have consumed alcohol.

 

These words sums it all :

WOMEN DRIVERS ARE OBLIVIOUS TO EVERYTHING ... Just beware.