Regina v Leong [2011] SBMC 13; Criminal Case 487 of 2011 (22 September 2011)

IN THE CENTRAL MAGISTRATE COURT

Criminal Case No. 487/2011

REGINA

vs.

ROBU LEONG

Prosecution: PC Pisei
Defence: Mr Charles Ashley

Date of hearing: 21st & 22nd September 2011
Date of Judgment: 22nd September 2011

Judgment on Dispute as to Facts

(1) The defendant is charged with the offence of assault causing actual bodily harm. It is alleged that on 9/4/2011 the defendant unlawfully assaulted the complainant, Ravatu Holmes and caused her actual bodily harm.

(2) The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge. The facts outlined by the prosecution was as follows:

"At approximately 11pm on the 9th of April 2011, the victim had gone down to the Top 10 Night Club following a text message from her cousin sister to meet her there.

On arrival, the victim and her cousin sister met on the clubs corridor and they chatted for a while. As they were standing there chatting, the victim suddenly felt a kick on her back. She turned to see who had kicked her and realised it was the defendant, who was her cousin brother and who worked at the Top 10 night club as a security officer and at that same instant, the defendant landed a right fisted punch on her forehead. The defendant, who was drunk at that time, then stepped back and danced around with his fists up in front of him in a fist-fighting position, as if taunting the victim to fight him.

The victim had thought that the defendant was kidding with her when he kicked her back but she realized he was serious when he punched her. With this realization came shock and fear which caused the victim to wet herself. When she realized she had wet herself, she was embarrassed and to cover her embarrassment, she grabbed a half-full bottle of cruiser drink from her cousin sister and poured it down herself. She then threw the bottle at the defendant but missed.

It was then that the defendant took out a pair of nun chucks and used it to whack the victim on the left side of her forehead. He then swung it at the victim again, hitting her on top of her back head.

The victim avoided further assaults by escaping out through the club's main entrance and was rushed to the hospital by her sister, who had dropped her off earlier on and was still packed in front of the club.

At the hospital, the victim's injuries were sutured with eight stitches to the one on the back head and one stitch to the left temple. She was then discharged.

The victim and the defendant had fallen out over a previous incident in which the defendant claimed the victim had reported him to police for allegedly raping her niece."

(3) Dispute on Facts

- The defendant disputed the following facts:

- he was not drunk

- he was not taunting her

- disputed that the victim poured the contents of cruiser drink on her clothings

- disputed that the nun chucks was taken out by the defendant

- That the complainant threw the cruiser bottle at the defendant and at the same time he swung the nun chucks at the complainant

- dispute that the victim ran toward the main entrance.

(4) The prosecution bears the burden of proof of the disputed facts and the standard of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt.

(5) The prosecution conceded the following matters:

- that the defendant was not drunk

- (later it became an issue in the cross-examination of the defendant)

- That he was not taunting the complainant for a fight.

(6) The prosecution called 2 witnesses – the complainant and her cousin Teima Tobai and the defendant also gave evidence.

(7) The defendant evidence and in cross examination he conceded:

- That the complainant poured the content of the cruiser bottle on her clothings

- that he was very drunk and that is why he told the police that he could not remember anything

(8) The defendant freely participated in the record of interview and he was asked a total of 58 questions. The interview commenced at 10.29 am and concluded at 12.45pm. He gave answer to question 1 to 27 and when questioned about the incident he said that he was very drunk. He gave the answers as follows to the following questions:

Q34:	Mr Robu Leong, I will put to you that on the night of Saturday 9th April 2011, you were involved in a case that you assault a woman, her id Ravatu Holmes at Top 10 night club that she had wounds on her head and forehead. What can you say on this?
A34:	I was too drunk
Q35:	What do you mean when you say that you were very drunk?
A35:	I didn't know
Q36:	What did, you don't know?
A36:	I'm too drunk so I didn't know what I do.
Q40:	Mr Robu Leong it's allege that you involve in a case of grievous harm which happened at Top 10 night club. What can you say on this?
A40:	I did not know

(9) At Q40 – he said he did not know that he was involved in a case of grievous harm. If he did not know that he was not involved in assaulting the complainant when she received very serious injuries and was covered in blood then how is he able to remember these –minute details. I find this very hard to comprehend. In the circumstances, I reject the evidence of the defendant and accept the evidence of the complainant.

(10) I find that the prosecution has proved all the disputed facts beyond all doubt and I convict the defendant of the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

Shafi Khan
Principal Magistrate