The taxi driver, who caused the death of a financial advisor along Scotts Road in April 2007, has been sentenced to 12 months' jail.

68-year-old Lee Yuet Kong had earlier been found guilty of causing the death of 29-year-old Alex Lim by a rash act.

The court heard that on 9 April, Lee and Lim were involved in a minor accident and both had stopped along Scotts Road in front of Isetan.

During their heated argument, Lee refused to divulge his details. So Lim stood in front of Lee's cab to stop him from leaving the scene.

But Lee braked suddenly and then drove into Lim, who was clinging onto the cab's bonnet. Lim was knocked unconscious and went into a coma. He died in hospital a month later.

Lee could have been jailed for up to two years.

His lawyer had told the court that Lee is suffering from various medical conditions including nasopharyngeal cancer.

Lee is also said to have a "history of heart failure" and is "waiting for open-heart surgery"

From
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/320518/1/.html

Actually, I am pretty surprised at the light punishment given to tis Lee for killing a life. The other party loses a life while he only get a year jail. (probably lesser from all the public holidays and good behavior kinda things) If u abuse maids, u get even heavier sentence than tis. If u get caught for being a gay, u even get 2 years jail compared to his one year jail.

From wat I see, tis Lee wilfully kill another over trivial matters and should be sentence to murder (sad to say is a death penalty but lets just be fair and say if he has committed murder or not) From the look of the case, the victim has the right to get tis Lee particulars after an accident. And he is not even regretful or repentent. Has justice been done here ?

My understanding of death by rash act goes like tis. If u drive a car and someone actually spring out of nowhere and u kill him. Or u have a flower pot or window tat fell off and kill someone. U r sentenced to tis act and tat explains the light sentence because u r not wilfully killing him.

u must prove intent to charge murder.
i think the ah pek did not mean that at that moment in time.
he's just pissed and provoked.
this is unfortunate and unnecessary. bless the young man and may his soul rest in peace, but he must have been aggressive and loud during the quarrel.

.. I peg it down to stressful existence here...

...people work themselve to the grave...

hence, most people who are just scraping by, are at break point...

Well, murder/killing another isn't right nor should it be condoned, but then, would over-filling a cup make it runneth over?

should have being a man slaughter at the very least..

Under criminal law, causing the death of another is not necessarily murder unless the perpetrator of the act causing another person to die is proven by the Prosecution beyond reasonable doubt to have the intention to kill that other person.

sptting at a minister carries a much heavier sentence as compared to this manslaughter act.

This tragic event is the result of an irresistable force meeting an immovable object – one force is quy lan the other tei kee.

should have being a man slaughter at the very least..

should be culpable homicide at least isn;t it JUstice is not served...

Under criminal law, causing the death of another is not necessarily murder unless the perpetrator of the act causing another person to die is proven by the Prosecution beyond reasonable doubt to have the intention to kill that other person

He has intention... A person is standing in front of his taxi, he knew accelerating can kill him, and he accelerated and kill him.

Culpable homicide is the sameas manslaughter. manslaughter is the layman term.
Anyway, some taxi drivers can have real bad attitude, but what happened is too much. Actually, the tragedy is avoidable... Either by the taxi driver relenting and give particulars to the victim, or the victim just taking down the license plate, which will ultimately lead to the taxi driver anyway...
The whole issue is tragic, in that a human life had been lost. The taxi driver was probably charged under this:
Causing death by rash or negligent act.
[b]304A. Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both.[/b]
Which explains the sentence he is getting.

Read somewhere that the victim was actually holding onto the bonnet. The taxi driver must have thought about how to get him off, which he continuing driving and jammed his brakes causing the victim to be flung off the bonnet by the braking inertia and causing him to hit his head on the road. That to me is premeditated causing harm and injury….leading to death.

killing someone with a gun is stupid.
killing someone with a vehicle is clever.

just claim any random accident and you'll be fine. 1 year later, you still be another hero to kill another of you enemy

I used to think rash act is something like throwing a stone anyhow and it kill someone u don’t intend or your flower pot drop down and it kill a person. Otherwise there is no such thing as murder or manslaughter isn’t it ?

Originally posted by stupidissmart:

He has intention... A person is standing in front of his taxi, he knew accelerating can kill him, and he accelerated and kill him.

So that makes his action premeditated and wilful? Let's not jump the gun here.

So that makes his action premeditated and wilful? Let's not jump the gun here.

He saw the person is in front of the car, and driving ahead is going to knock him isn't it ? If he drive the car and knock him, it is obvious it is dangerous enough to kill the person. He have all the ingredient for premeditated and wilful.

Originally posted by stupidissmart:

I used to think rash act is something like throwing a stone anyhow and it kill someone u don't intend or your flower pot drop down and it kill a person. Otherwise there is no such thing as murder or manslaughter isn't it ?

That is reckless behavious. N normally you are contributionary to the actions and the cause of it.

what's his lawyer's name again ? ....

A rash act can kill someone.Manslaughter is to kill somepone.So that case was more likely a rash act.

299. Culpable homicide

Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.

From the above, the taxi driver seems to have all the ingredient to culpable homicide. He causes death, with intention, by driving his car, knowingly tat can kill the person and he has commit culpable homicide. 4 ingredients r present as written in bold

Looking at rash act

Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both[/b]

The important words are in bold. Tat means the person had committed death but not sufficient to be considered as culpable homicide. If u look at the 4 ingredients, intention is the one tat is considered the most important point.

So if the taxi driver has intention to kill the person, then it is culpable homicide. If he has no intentions, it is rash act.

Rash act is doing something silly, like having a flower pot dropping and kill someone or u play with someone in the pool and u drown the person unintentionally.

Originally posted by stupidissmart:

Rash act is doing something silly, like having a flower pot dropping and kill someone or u play with someone in the pool and u drown the person unintentionally.

Hmm, that reminds me of the four commandoes in the dunking trial. I am sure they knew that their actions were potentially lethal, didn't they?

Hmm, that reminds me of the four commandoes in the dunking trial. I am sure they knew that their actions were potentially lethal, didn't they?

Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.

The 4 commandoes r not guilty of culpable homocide because they do have the knowledge their actions can kill the person. Dunking people's head into water has been conducted in SAF for many years and tis guy is the first one who die due to tis. They did not invent tis treatment but they r following training schedule allocated to them

Originally posted by stupidissmart:

From
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/320518/1/.html

Actually, I am pretty surprised at the light punishment given to tis Lee for killing a life. The other party loses a life while he only get a year jail. (probably lesser from all the public holidays and good behavior kinda things) If u abuse maids, u get even heavier sentence than tis. If u get caught for being a gay, u even get 2 years jail compared to his one year jail.

From wat I see, tis Lee wilfully kill another over trivial matters and should be sentence to murder (sad to say is a death penalty but lets just be fair and say if he has committed murder or not) From the look of the case, the victim has the right to get tis Lee particulars after an accident. And he is not even regretful or repentent. Has justice been done here ?

My understanding of death by rash act goes like tis. If u drive a car and someone actually spring out of nowhere and u kill him. Or u have a flower pot or window tat fell off and kill someone. U r sentenced to tis act and tat explains the light sentence because u r not wilfully killing him.

Taxi driver didn't have the intention to 'kill' that bugger la. I believe he was trying to scare or teach that fella a lesson - similar to your 'death by rash act'. It's not like he ran that fella over.

Think about it, if someone jumped onto your bonnet of your speeding car, you'll also jam brake what...

What that cock taxi driver 'didn't' know is that the momentum can be really great to push the poor sod unto the ground. If he's Commando, at least he'll know 'chin-on-chest-strap' and 'push-turn-roll-over' to protect his numbskull what....

Now the back of the head is very fragile - a light strike to it can cause loss of consciousness. Heavy blow can be fatal. That's why that joker in another thread was complaining about his teacher hitting his empty vessel with an exercise book. Ego and nut all bruised.

The car started off as stationary. They stopped because of an accident. Then the person prevent the taxi driver from running and block the taxi. Whether he climb onto the bonnet or not, the taxi started off at zero speed. Then the taxi accelerate, hit the person before braking and let the person fly off and die. I believe he knew tat driving the taxi and hit the person will cause death.

From the newspaper

During their heated argument, Lee refused to divulge his details. So Lim stood in front of Lee's cab to stop him from leaving the scene.

But Lee braked suddenly and then drove into Lim who was clinging onto the cab's bonnet.

from another newspaper

To stop Lee from leaving before giving his particulars, Mr Lim stood in front of the taxi, but the cab driver moved off nonetheless, throwing him onto the bonnet. Lee then accelerated and braked abruptly, causing Mr Lim to fall backwards and hit his head on the road.

...

The judge also described Lee as being “vague and evasive” during the trial, and slammed Lee’s account that Mr Lim had jumped onto the cab’s bonnet as “far-fetched” and a “mere afterthought”.

...

The judge also reproached Lee for his nonchalance and lack of remorse

From http://www.todayonline.com/articles/230417.asp

He is already stationary, then he purposely drive into him. Tat is intentional

Originally posted by stupidissmart:


Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or [b]with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.

The 4 commandoes r not guilty of culpable homocide because they do have the knowledge their actions can kill the person. Dunking people's head into water has been conducted in SAF for many years and tis guy is the first one who die due to tis. They did not invent tis treatment but they r following training schedule allocated to them
[/b]

It was a rash act on the part of the Minister of Defence to cover his own backside.

Please stop discussing the law whether it should be this or that when it is abundantly clear that you fellas know nothing about the law! You fellas want to portray yourselves very intelligent but end up looking absolutely STOO-PID!

Empty vesels make the most noise.....

Murder = Planned homicide

He didnt plan to kill him. Thus = Rash Act.