If you went home and saw a stranger with your wife in a state of undress on your marital bed, what would you do?
Shawnald Lee Hong Heng, 25, concluded that the man was trying to take advantage of his wife, Ms Tricia Wong Kai Yan, and attacked him.
He repeatedly punched Mr Donovan Quek Hon Yong, 25, inflicting severe injury that required two operations.
Mr Quek, who is Ms Wong’s friend, suffered a black eye, fractures in the eye socket area, and loose and chipped teeth. He did not retaliate.
For the attack in July last year, Lee was sentenced to five weeks’ jail last Tuesday after pleading guilty to voluntarily causing hurt.
The prosecution had deemed the case a unique situation and the presiding judge had acknowledged that Lee was emotionally charged by the scene before him.
Some netizens felt that the sentence was too harsh for someone who had been trying to defend his wife’s honour.
Several went to The New Paper’s Facebook page to justify Lee’s actions, arguing that any husband would have done the same in protecting his home and his wife.
Mr Zad Zainal commented: “Normal reaction from any man, yes, any man. The (other) man has no right to be in the room at that time. Had the husband returned later, it would have been a different story.”
Ms Wendy Low wrote: “Hey, the husband is a victim. Yes, he beat up the man, (but) if I’m the man and I see my wife naked, I would also do that. What more on their bed in their bedroom. Isn’t that too much?”
Others felt that Lee’s five-week term was harsh compared to other cases where offenders received similar sentences for what they felt were more serious offences.
But criminal lawyers TNP spoke to said it was inappropriate to make such comparisons because every case and the sentencing considerations involved are different.
Every case has a different background and the sentences depend on varying factors, said Mr Rajan Supramaniam, a lawyer at Hilbourne Law LLC with more than 15 years of experience.
He said that in Lee’s case, which was classified under voluntarily causing hurt (VCH), factors like severity of injuries, compensation and surrounding circumstances would come into play.
Other criminal lawyers like Mr Amarick Gill of Amarick Gill LLC, who has close to 20 years’ experience, highlighted the severe injuries inflicted as one of the predominant factors in the case.
He said: “In this case, the injuries sound quite bad. (Lee) probably reacted emotionally and without proper thought, but the court also has to consider the degree of the injuries.”
Lawyer Josephus Tan of Fortis Law Corporation said compensation would also be considered in sentencing, but stressed that every fact had to be decided in totality of the case.
He added that while there was an element of provocation – in that Lee was under the impression that his wife was being taken advantage of – he could have reacted differently. SHOVE “Any relatable man might have felt the emotional charge. If you see your wife in such a situation, you could go over there, grab the person with appropriate force and shove him off,” said Mr Tan.
“After that, you can contact the authorities to take him away. (If Lee had done this,) the matter would not have escalated.”
He added that the victim had sustained severe injuries including fractures.
“Normally (when the victim suffers fractures), the assailant would be charged under VCGH (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) but (Lee) was charged under VCH,” said Mr Tan.
“I believe the unique facts of this case meant that discretion could have already been exercised (since) Lee was given a lesser charge.”
According to the Penal Code, a VCGH offence is more severe and carries a jail term of up to 10 years and can include a fine or caning.
The lesser VCH offence entails a jail term of up to two years or a fine of $5,000, or both.
On the online reactions to Lee’s case, Mr Gill cautioned against the public judging the severity of an offence and sentence on the jail term alone.
“You can’t directly compare the sentences of two different cases as the facts differ,” he said.
“The layman will not be able to fully see the reason and the justification of such sentencing, but the judge would have considered everything and weighed each element.”
Mr Tan said: “This is what we call ‘kopitiam law’. Members of the public should not judge or engage in such coffee shop law clinics or compare cases and their sentences because they are not fair comparisons.
“When the public is outraged, this is where vigilante justice might appear, and that is dangerous.”
Other cases with five-week jail sentence
OCTOBER 2015
A Briton hit a policeman in his left eye area.
The 39-year-old tourist, who was drunk then, was also fined a total of $1,400 for pushing a motorist on the chest and damaging the backrest of a wooden bench at the police lock-up holding bay.
He pleaded guilty to hurting an officer in a police car, pushing a motorist on the chest and committing mischief.
Three other charges were taken into consideration during sentencing.
APRIL 2015
A 40-year-old man was riding his power-assisted bike on a pavement in Paya Lebar Way when he knocked down a 68-year-old housewife.
The woman sustained a head injury and facial fractures.
The man was sentenced in July this year after pleading guilty to causing grievous hurt by performing a rash act.
JULY 2014
A 26-year-old man was jailed for five weeks and ordered to pay compensation of $108 to a taxi driver after admitting to kicking him in the face.
The man had vomited in the taxi. He attacked the driver after he was asked to pay for the cost of cleaning the vehicle.
This article was first published on August 4, 2016.
Get The New Paper for more stories.
