F

[Parkingidiot]

Well, strange how prosecutors are so "ineffective" and "careless" when wealthy expats are involved... coincidence?? Drink driving is such a basic, simple charge - I find it unbelievable how this slip-up could happen.

 

 

[Timex1441]

Well, strange how prosecutors are so "ineffective" and "careless" when wealthy expats are involved... coincidence?? Drink driving is such a basic, simple charge - I find it unbelievable how this slip-up could happen.

 

Anyway, it's all water under the bridge now. What i know is this: if some ordinary unlucky guy has a little too much to drink, then later gets stopped at a police roadblock while driving, then tries some silly stunt like downing some more alcoholic drink to foil the breathalyser test..... think court will excuse him?

 

Basically the court didn't explain: what's to stop people from keeping a can of beer in the glovebox and trying the same trick??

maybe they'll have a law similar to that in usa, where it's against the law to have a open can/bottle of alcohol unless it's inside an authorized restaurant/pub or a residential home. In tat case, the moment u open the can/bottle in or outside the car, whether u drink the contents b4 or after the accident/breath test, doesn't matter, since u already broke the law.

[Zuoom]

Err...

 

hate to burst everyone's bubble, but this guy "got off" because the prosecuter screwed up, not because of preferential treatment.

 

From what it looks like, they produced "evidence" that he had been drinking and driving, but he was not convicted of drinking and driving, he was convicted of something else - something that they didn't show evidence to prove it.

 

sounds like a technicality.

[Achtung7]

Any good reason to amend the charge in the first place? Unfit to drive sounds like a lesser charge than drink driving... I guess we will not know what went on behind closed doors.. maybe the prosecutors were overloaded with work and hence wrote the wrong charge?? Maybe it's a checklist on a sheet of paper and they ticked the wrong box?? I believe there is a reason for anything to happen...

[Joseph22]

Err...

 

hate to burst everyone's bubble, but this guy "got off" because the prosecuter screwed up, not because of preferential treatment.

 

From what it looks like, they produced "evidence" that he had been drinking and driving, but he was not convicted of drinking and driving, he was convicted of something else - something that they didn't show evidence to prove it.

 

but if this is the case, shouldnt the person be totally free from the prosecution since they have no evidence to sue him for what he is being sue for?? and they didnt amend it to another charge??

Edited March 15, 2011 by Joseph22

[Park88]

there is a serious problem when one does not even trust the law in our own country

 

then we are no better than Myammar

[Scion]

well, at the end of the day...

 

the ang moh is happy, cos he no need to go to jail

the lawyers are happy, cos they receive big payment

the prosecutors are happy, cos life goes on, so is work

the judge is happy, cos another case closed

the ang moh's friends are happy, cos their drinking buddy can continue to drink with them

 

so many people happy, this makes the happiness index of Singapore increases further... that will make our ministers proud and happy

 

[TandemAssassin]

Shoddy reporting by ST again.

 

When will they understand that laypersons will never be able to understand the legal reasoning behind such decisions? Based on the newspaper report, here is what appears to have happened.

 

1) Charged with Drink Driving

2) Evidence produced to show Drink Driving

3) Evidence insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was Drink Driving because they did not catch him red-handed. The reading from the blood test cannot conclusively prove he was drink driving. Convicted of a different charge for which separate evidence was not tendered. District Judge thought that evidence produced sufficient to prove the different charge.

4) High Court Judge disagrees that evidence to prove the different charge was produced because only evidence tendered was that accused was above legal limit. Elements of the new charge are not made out. Accused acquitted of the new charge.

 

At the end of the day, accused persons have their rights too. The result may not be satisfactory to many here. But strange as it may sound, it actually shows that the legal system is working FAIRLY. Because there was no solid evidence to convict him of either charge. This means that he should never have been charged. How can we convict people without solid proof?

[Spurman]

Well. Kinda correct ruling. But loopholes exploited. Prob forced to give benefit of doubt, though prob in out hearts we knew the Aussie drank b4 crashing. Haiz,