1. We refer to the media reports about the case against Woffles Wu.

2. Woffles Wu was charged for abetting his employee Kuan to give false information to the police about the commission of speeding offenses in 2005 and 2006. Kuan gave the false information. Woffles Wu, who did not give any information to the police, was charged with abetting Kuan to do so, which is an offence under Section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act.  There was no evidence of payment or gratification given to Kuan. Kuan, who is 82 years old, was given a stern warning.

3. In general, fines or short custodial sentences are imposed for wilfully providing false information, under Section 81(3) Road Traffic Act. Custodial sentences are typically imposed under this section when there are aggravating features, such as many instances of the offence committed by the same person.  

4. Some media reports refer to cases in which imprisonment term has been imposed under Section 204A of the Penal Code.  The accused could not have been charged under that provision for intentionally perverting the course of justice (which is a more serious charge compared with Section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act).  This is because the accused committed his offence in 2006, before Section 204A of the Penal Code was enacted in 2008. The position of the accused is therefore different from others who were subject to Section 204A and who have been punished with a term of imprisonment.

5. The charge preferred against an accused person would be calibrated to reflect the seriousness of the criminal act and the fact situation, and whether the legislation in question provides a specific provision dealing with the criminal act or whether reliance has to be placed on general legislation such as the Penal Code. On the facts of this case, as there was no major accident or injury, it was considered appropriate to proceed under Section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act rather than invoke the general provisions of the Penal Code, such as Section 182. Other sections have their own requirements, which would not have been met on the facts of the present case. Prior to 2008, offences of this nature were generally dealt with under Section 81 (3) of the Road Traffic Act.

*  *  *

Media Contact:

Li Jin Haw (Ms)

Assistant Director, Corporate Communications Unit

Attorney-General’s Chambers, Singapore

Email: [email protected]

Tel: 6332 4693

 

You May Also Like

Singapore President on his nine-day State visit to Japan, commemorating 50 years of diplomatic relations

President Tony Tan Keng Yam has arrived at Japan for a nine-day…

UK PM Boris Johnson tests positive for COVID-19

The United Kingdom’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson on Fri (27 Mar) revealed…

GCT: “We want the best captain and crew”

Howard Lee / Elderly folk sitting and chatting on field mats and…

新型冠状病毒疫情 中国死亡病例增至170人

近期各地爆发新型冠状病毒疫情,其中中国当地疫情最严重。根据中国卫生应急办公室最新数据,截至1月29日,国家卫生健康委收到31个省(自治区、直辖市)和新疆生产建设兵团累计报告确诊病例7千711例,现有重症病例1千370例,累计死亡病例170例,累计治愈出院病例124例。 而其中湖北的死亡病例增至一日38宗,是迄今为止单日死亡人数最高之一。而大部分感染病例也发生在湖北中,共1千032例。中国当局要求,要对疫情中心湖北武汉的人员实行严格管控,要求各地方进行“网格化、地毯式管理”,从武汉前往各地的人员应到社区登记并居家医学观察14天。 我国采取多项预防措施,一度陷入“口罩荒” 除了中国疫情严重,国外也陆续传出确诊案例,其中泰国以14宗确诊病例,被列为除了中国以外,确诊病例最多的国家。而我国截至29日,本地已出现确诊病例共10例,卫生部仍强调迄今为止未有在本地社区传播的现象。目前三名患者情况稳定,当局将继续观察他们的健康状况。 至于此前七位确诊患者情况稳定,且大多好转。 鉴于病毒的高传染性,有网民担忧病毒进一步扩散,为此发起联署,建议教育部应暂时让孩子待在家两周,改落实网络教学计划,藉此希望减少扩散的风险。 对此,也有其他网民留言表示,当学生乘搭人群较密集的公交,都有可能曝露在人传人感染的风险;有者也认同,这至少能减少全家都感染被隔离的风险。 我国政府跨部门工作小组于昨日召开记者会,表示禁止在两周内曾经到过湖北,以及持有湖北护照的信访客入境或过境我国。 我国也将停止发放签证给湖北护照持有者,之前已经签发的观光证和多次入境签证都暂取消,免签转机服务也暂时停止。而新加坡各家航空公司随后也发文表示配合预防措施,接受旅客们进行取消或更改机票。 此外,由于疫情严重,为了防御,民众也纷纷在抢口罩,导致口罩价格一度飙涨至288元,引起网民的议论。 面对如此情景,联合领导跨部门抗炎工作小组的国家发展部长兼财政部第二部长黄循财就于24日下午,在脸书上帖文指出,我国的手术口罩库存充足,并且逐步为零售商补货,因此民众不需要急着扫货抢购。 多国先后宣布湖北省的侨民撤出,并提醒各国民众勿前往湖北省…