Judge not convinced by witnesses, acquits teen of throwing table | The New Paper
Singapore

Judge not convinced by witnesses, acquits teen of throwing table

This article is more than 12 months old

Judge says witnesses were too far to see him clearly

A district judge acquitted a teen of hurling a classroom table from the third storey of a secondary school block, finding doubts in the claims of two other students who pointed to him.

District Judge Eugene Tay in the Youth Court noted that the two witnesses who said the boy was the culprit were both inside a classroom in the opposite block some 30 metres away, and it was raining heavily then as well.

"I was not convinced that the line of sight of the (two witnesses) was totally clear or unobstructed," he said in judgment grounds last month.

"This, coupled with the fact that the incident would have taken place in a matter of seconds and that the person who had thrown the table would have been moving instead of being static, I concluded that (they) would not have seen the culprit for more than a few seconds," he explained.

The then 15-year-old boy had been charged with committing a rash act to endanger the personal safety of others.

The incident happened at a school in Jurong on May 22 last year at about 11am.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Derek Ee argued that both witnesses were 100 per cent sure of the identity of the culprit.

He said that even though there was bad blood between them, and they had motive to frame the youth, they had withstood cross-examination.

Defence lawyer Hannah Tjoa said that of the six prosecution witnesses, only two were direct eye-witnesses, and they discussed the evidence and confirmed each others' version, "thus implanting false memories in both of their minds".

District Judge Tay noted that the two direct witnesses were unable to recall what the teen was wearing then, which weakened their testimony.

He made it clear he did not deem the two witnesses to have been lying because they had a grudge, but was doubtful of what they actually saw.

The prosecution is appealing.

COURT & CRIME