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

5,000 people filed application for Private Hire Car Driver's Vocational Licence in three days

Land Transport Authority (LTA) has announced on Wednesday (15 March) that 5,000…

4.5公顷林地遭清理 裕廊集团总裁:不逃避责任

经初步调查显示,有4. 5公顷的克兰芝林地(约六个足球场大小),于去年12月24日至1月13日之间遭承包商华中环球“错误清理”。对此裕廊集团总裁陈文凯称该集团“不会逃避责任”。 两周前,大自然爱好者Brice Li在脸书发文,分享克兰芝兀兰一片林地,在两年前还一篇青葱,但是今年初却已被清理一大片土地。 上述被划为发展农业食品创新园的林地,位于克兰芝路和克兰芝弄交界处,长有南洋楹(Albizia)和灌木等,生活着约47种鸟类,约占本地总记录的12%。 尽管克兰芝林地不是自然保护区,但仍存在生态价值。2011年,马来西亚铁道公司(KTM)归还这片林地时仍是灌木丛,之后渐渐长出植被。 有25公顷的林地被划为农业食品创新园发展用地。其中11.9公顷已被开发,仍保留13.1公顷的绿地。 贸工部与国家发展部在今日(22日)召开记者会,席上贸工部长陈振声指出,裕廊集团已展开内部调查,以了解旗下职员是否有按照规定和流程工作,并且探讨如何改善与承包商等合作机构的监督流程。 他称,已指示所有涉及参与土地清理项目的相关机构立即进行检查,确保他们的项目监督和执行过程合规有序,以免重蹈覆辙。 至于国家公园局则另外援引野生动物法令与公园与树木法,调查涉事单位是否违法。 陈文凯坦言,裕廊集团在此事件有整体责任,且不会逃避。 国家发展部与市区重建局,曾计划将斜穿这块土地的铁道走廊改道,以保留一整块土地供未来发展。…

From carbon sink to carbon emitter: Clearing of forests led to an increase in carbon emissions from land use in Singapore

According to a recent study by National Parks Board (NParks), land in…

Police investigates private forum under Public Order Act

the following is a media release by Singaporeans for Democracy (SFD): —…