different punishment for similar offence - why?
-
Good article from Choo Zheng Xi of TOC, who listed down all similar cases whereby Sec 182 of the Penal Code has been preferred and all guilty persons sentenced to jail.
Why in this case, Sec 182 PC is not preferred on Woffles but Sec 81(3) of RTA? Is a different charged used so that he can be let off the hook?
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2012/06/questions-remain-in-woffles-wu-matter/ -
hquek:
experienced before so can confirm. if one is caught speeding etc and the summons is mailed, it will be sent to the car owner. Car owner then must fill in who is the person behind the wheel at time of offence.
Thx for d cfm. -
AC_Power:
Gud historical evidence fr TOC article u referred to in support of his argument.
The traffic offences took place in 2005 and 2006 and someone took the rap for him. It was not uncovered only until last year I believe.
SPF need not explain anything I feel. The judge however, need to explain his sentencing. This is outrageous.
How can two person committing the same offence be sentenced so differently? The judge needs to be sacked for making a mockery out of our judiciary system, which is famed to be fair and just.
Those cases will also, in all probability, showed dat a six yrs lapse between time of offence n sentencing is not d norm. I wld say d six yrs lapse is highly unusual.
Dis case wld hv continued to be conveniently buried if someone who knew about it didn't pursue it with d police.
Something smells. d SPF has to explain dis. -
Way2GO:
There isn't a 6 years lapse.
Gud historical evidence fr TOC article u referred to in support of his argument.AC_Power:
The traffic offences took place in 2005 and 2006 and someone took the rap for him. It was not uncovered only until last year I believe.
SPF need not explain anything I feel. The judge however, need to explain his sentencing. This is outrageous.
How can two person committing the same offence be sentenced so differently? The judge needs to be sacked for making a mockery out of our judiciary system, which is famed to be fair and just.
Those cases will also, in all probability, showed dat a six yrs lapse between time of offence n sentencing is not d norm. I wld say d six yrs lapse is highly unusual.
Dis case wld hv continued to be conveniently buried if someone who knew about it didn't pursue it with d police.
Something smells. d SPF has to explain dis.
Okay, let me explain. In 2005 and 2006, our dear Woffles committed the traffic offence. Someone took the rap for him and paid the fines. So, as far as the traffic summons are concern, fine paid up, case close.
Only last year, someone whistle-blew, informing the authority that someone could have took the rap for Woffles for the above traffic offences. That kicked start the investigation. So it is only a year or so for the police to complete the investigation and bring Woffles to court.
It is just unfortunate that his dishonesty is exposed 6 years down the road. How can we blame the police? -
AC_Power:
There isn't a 6 years lapse.
Gud historical evidence fr TOC article u referred to in support of his argument.Way2GO:
[quote=\"AC_Power\"]
The traffic offences took place in 2005 and 2006 and someone took the rap for him. It was not uncovered only until last year I believe.
SPF need not explain anything I feel. The judge however, need to explain his sentencing. This is outrageous.
How can two person committing the same offence be sentenced so differently? The judge needs to be sacked for making a mockery out of our judiciary system, which is famed to be fair and just.
Those cases will also, in all probability, showed dat a six yrs lapse between time of offence n sentencing is not d norm. I wld say d six yrs lapse is highly unusual.
Dis case wld hv continued to be conveniently buried if someone who knew about it didn't pursue it with d police.
Something smells. d SPF has to explain dis.
Okay, let me explain. In 2005 and 2006, our dear Woffles committed the traffic offence. Someone took the rap for him and paid the fines. So, as far as the traffic summons are concern, fine paid up, case close.
Only last year, someone whistle-blew, informing the authority that someone could have took the rap for Woffles for the above traffic offences. That kicked start the investigation. So it is only a year or so for the police to complete the investigation and bring Woffles to court.
It is just unfortunate that his dishonesty is exposed 6 years down the road. How can we blame the police?[/quote]blame the whistle-blower, so late then blow :evil: :evil: -
verykiasu2010:
Hahaha....
blame the whistle-blower, so late then blow :evil: :evil:
But since he is a plastic surgeon, certainly he can cover up better. So take longer time for people to discover.
-
verykiasu2010:
[/quote][/quote]
blame the whistle-blower, so late then blow :evil: :evil:
actually, WW was snitched upon by his ex-staff who was fired for stealing from his clinic.
from what I recall,
she knew about the case and told them but police delayed investigating as she had her own case pending (stealing from his clinic, obviously).
so after her case was done, they had to investigate. -
AC_Power:
Wat u posted is new info dat just came in?
There isn't a 6 years lapse.
Okay, let me explain. In 2005 and 2006, our dear Woffles committed the traffic offence. Someone took the rap for him and paid the fines. So, as far as the traffic summons are concern, fine paid up, case close.
Only last year, someone whistle-blew, informing the authority that someone could have took the rap for Woffles for the above traffic offences. That kicked start the investigation. So it is only a year or so for the police to complete the investigation and bring Woffles to court.
It is just unfortunate that his dishonesty is exposed 6 years down the road. How can we blame the police?
in particular, dat d Kuan fellow paid d fines in 2005/2006?
In my many years of driving on SG roads, I have only seen old folks crawling along on even expressways, n hv yet to see one who speeds at 91 kph on a 70 kph road.
Have u ever seen a 76/77 yo driver speeding?
Does Kuan even hv a driving license?
Wat make/model of car was it? Was it a sports car?
These n other relevant questions nvr enter d investigator's mind when d case came before him?
I read dat a complaint was first filed with d police in 2009/2010.
It was not pursued till someone else file another complaint in 2012.
I m not blaming d police.
However I maintain something smells fishy in d handling of dis case,
fr d police handling to d relevant statutes applied by d judiciary to d Minister's explanation which contradicts WW's earlier testimony.
More needs to be done to restore d public faith. -
Way2GO:
If the Kuan fella never take the rap and paid the fine, why are we discussing about this today? For such traffic summons, the traffic police will not go into details as to probe whether it is possible for the old man to drive that fast. It is not a murder case.
Wat u posted is new info dat just came in?AC_Power:
There isn't a 6 years lapse.
Okay, let me explain. In 2005 and 2006, our dear Woffles committed the traffic offence. Someone took the rap for him and paid the fines. So, as far as the traffic summons are concern, fine paid up, case close.
Only last year, someone whistle-blew, informing the authority that someone could have took the rap for Woffles for the above traffic offences. That kicked start the investigation. So it is only a year or so for the police to complete the investigation and bring Woffles to court.
It is just unfortunate that his dishonesty is exposed 6 years down the road. How can we blame the police?
in particular, dat d Kuan fellow paid d fines in 2005/2006?
In my many years of driving on SG roads, I have only seen old folks crawling along on even expressways, n hv yet to see one who speeds at 91 kph on a 70 kph road.
Have u ever seen a 76/77 yo driver speeding?
Does Kuan even hv a driving license?
Wat make/model of car was it? Was it a sports car?
These n other relevant questions nvr enter d investigator's mind when d case came before him?
I read dat a complaint was first filed with d police in 2009/2010.
It was not pursued till someone else file another complaint in 2012.
I m not blaming d police.
However I maintain something smells fishy in d handling of dis case,
fr d police handling to d relevant statutes applied by d judiciary to d Minister's explanation which contradicts WW's earlier testimony.
More needs to be done to restore d public faith.
Kuan certainly has a valid driving licence. If not, he will be charged for driving the car without valid licence and coupled with the speeding offence, he will be jailed.
The only thing fishy is the charge preferred against WW - why under RTA and not the normal 182 Penal Code. This is totally out of the norm. -
Joule:
This is something new. I didn't know the whistleblower is an ex-staff who stole from his clinic.
actually, WW was snitched upon by his ex-staff who was fired for stealing from his clinic.
from what I recall,
she knew about the case and told them but police delayed investigating as she had her own case pending (stealing from his clinic, obviously).
so after her case was done, they had to investigate.
Should that be the case, I believe there must be a reason why the police want to settle the theft case before moving on.
As far as I am concern, as long as justice is meted out, I do not care how long it takes the police to charge the person in court.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better š
Register Login