I WANT EX-WIFE'S LOVER JAILED, NOT FINED
He's beaten by ex-wife's lover & wrist is fractured
Attacker fined $2,000, so victim hires lawyer to try and reopen case
By Tay Shi An
November 06, 2006
THIS was the man who had an affair with
his wife, leading to their divorce.
They had a history of intrigues, quarrels, abusive phone calls, even a police report and warning.
And then his ex-wife's lover bashed him up, when the two met and had a heated argument earlier this year.
Alan (not his real name) was punched and kicked.
And when the scuffle was over, Alan (above) was taken to hospital, where he was found to have suffered a fractured wrist and other injuries - which he claimed were the result of the beating.
Alan, 39, was given medical leave for three months.
He lodged a police report and expected Chris, 41, to be severely punished.
But he was shocked when his ex-wife's lover was only fined $2,000 for causing hurt and damaging his handphone last month.
Alan feels the penalty is nothing compared with the injuries he suffered and thinks Chris should have faced a more serious charge.
We are not using the real names of the parties involved because both men have young children who are embroiled in their parents' marital woes.
'Why was he only charged with causing hurt when it should be grievous hurt? He should have been jailed. $2,000 is peanuts for him,' Alan said.
Under the law, anyone causing 'grievous hurt', such as a fracture or dislocation of a bone, can be jailed up to seven years and caned.
Although he is a bankrupt, Alan got his father to hire a lawyer on his behalf to ask the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) to reopen the case.
Such an application is rare because once a case has been concluded, a person cannot be charged in court again for the same offence.
But Alan's lawyer thinks he has a case because he argues that the evidence of his fracture was not presented to the court earlier.
Alan's father has been billed $2,000 so far for the case, but Alan feels that it's worth it.
He said: 'If I can put him inside the jail, I'll find the way.'
When contacted, a spokesman for the AGC said the prosecution had been aware that the victim had a fracture. But a more serious charge was not preferred as there was insufficient evidence to prove that the accused had voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the victim.
Alan is undeterred. When told of the AGC's position, he said he would still ask his lawyer to go ahead in filing an appeal to reopen the case.
And if he fails, Alan says he will pursue a civil suit and claim damages against Chris, which he is entitled to under the law.
Chris is also currently undergoing a divorce.
The trouble between the two men started around 2001, when Alan found out from a friend that his wife was having an affair with Chris, her boss and owner of a cleaning company. Alan and his wife had been married 10 years at the time.
HEATED CONFRONTATION
He said the three of them had a heated confrontation, and he told her to stop the affair, but it continued.
Alan then tracked down the number of the man's wife and called her - only to find that she already knew of the affair.
He said: 'We exchanged ideas. I ask her to monitor what time her husband comes back, I monitor what time my wife comes back.'
The two men had several other run-ins.
In 2003, Chris was given a police warning for threatening Alan. According to the police report filed then, he had made nuisance calls to Alan, used vulgarities and challenged him to a fight.
He also allegedly said that either he or Alan 'will have to die in order to settle the matter'.
Eventually, Alan and his wife separated, and finalised their divorce last year.
According to court documents, the fight between the two men that led to the fracture happened around 11pm on 19 Apr, at a car park near Alan's flat.
The police received a call from a member of the public, saying two men had a dispute and that one of them was 'being hit'.
Investigations showed that the fight started after Chris accused Alan of following him. Hot words were exchanged and Chris punched Alan in the left eye, and kicked him.
Chris also challenged Alan to call his ex-wife. But when Alan took out his handphone, a Nokia worth about $460, Chris slapped it out of his hand, and stomped on it.
The court documents also cited a medical report from a doctor at the National University Hospital (NUH), where Alan was treated on the night of the incident. The report noted redness over his left eyebrow.
There was no mention of the fractured wrist, or what caused it, in the court documents.
Chris eventually pleaded guilty to two charges, one of causing hurt and the other of committing mischief and causing damage to Alan's handphone.
He was fined $1,000 on each of the two charges. A third charge, of using criminal force on Alan, was taken into consideration.
Alan is now living at a friend's house.
He claims that because of the fractured left wrist, he could not handle the tools he used daily as a gardener, and could not work.
And as a result, he had to give up about a quarter of his jobs.
BADLY AFFECTED
He claimed: 'I was very badly affected. I couldn't even use my hand to grip a glass of water. I couldn't trim plants, or use the blower to blow the leaves. I couldn't cut the grass.'
He showed us medical reports from NUH and the Singapore General Hospital (SGH).
The NUH report dated 19 Apr stated that he suffered a fracture of the radius (a bone in the lower arm), and that there was 'swelling with deformity' on his left wrist.
He also showed us x-rays from SGH, where he received follow-up treatment. They showed the broken bone (see picture).
When The New Paper on Sunday contacted Chris' wife, she declined to put us in touch with him or to comment on the case.
Now, Alan hopes to push forward with his application and the civil suit against the man who, he said, had wronged him twice.
He said: 'I just want him to learn a lesson.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prosecutor: Insufficient evidence to prove more serious charge
CHRIS did not face a more serious charge because there was insufficient evidence to show that he had voluntarily caused Alan's wrist fracture.
Responding to queries from The New Paper on Sunday, a spokesman for the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) said 'there was insufficient evidence to prove that the accused had voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the victim'.
Even though there was no mention of the fractured wrist in the court papers, the spokesman said: 'At all material times, the prosecution was aware that the victim sustained a fracture arising out of an encounter with the accused.'
Alan's lawyer, Mr Edmond Pereira, said the public prosecutor has the final say on how an offender should be dealt with.
Similarly, the prosecutor can review whether there are sufficient reasons to reopen a case.
Normally a person cannot be charged twice on the same facts once the court has decided on the case.
But lawyers say this principle will not apply if there is fresh evidence to show that an accused may have committed a separate offence that has not been considered earlier.
And the public can write in to implore the prosecutor to review the case and consider an appeal.
Mr Pereira had earlier written to the AGC, to appeal against the reduced charge. This was on 13 Oct, a week before Chris was sentenced.
The reply, dated 17 Oct, read: 'We have already taken note of the factors you have raised in your letter. A decision has already been made in this matter which will be made known to your client in due course.'
Mr Pereira has asked for records of the court proceedings, which he has not received so far.
In this case, he said he will wait AGC's formal reply, before advising his client on the next move.
Whatever the outcome, he said his client can still sue the accused, to compensate for his pain and suffering.
http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/st...16863,00.html? 
