SINGAPORE: The prosecution and defence both turned to the High Court to appeal in the case of a Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) captain, whose rash act caused a full-time national serviceman (NSF) to be crushed to death by a Bionix vehicle.
The prosecution found the five-month jail term meted out to Ong Lin Jie, 32, inadequate, and asked for nine months’ jail instead.
The defence asked for the jail term to be reduced to three months, pointing the finger of blame at the alleged failure in communications.
Ong was convicted in November 2021 of doing a rash act not amounting to culpable homicide by ordering the victim, 22-year-old Corporal First Class (CFC) Liu Kai, to overtake a Bionix Infantry Fighting Vehicle with his Land Rover.
As a result, the safe distance of 30m between the two vehicles was not kept, and the Bionix reversed into the Land Rover, crushing CFC Liu to death. Ong had been seated beside CFC Liu, giving him directions.
They were taking part in a training exercise near Sungei Gedong Camp in November 2018 that was meant to train a company’s operational capabilities.
Ong was a platoon trainer, tasked to ensure adherence to safety procedures, and the vehicle commander of the Land Rover that had been assigned to him, facilitating movement as platoon trainer.
The prosecution had argued that Ong’s order for CFC Liu to overtake the Bionix was a rash act that placed the Land Rover in dangerous proximity to the Bionix. This caused the collision and CFC Liu’s death, they said.
The district judge concluded that the collision was the consequence of the lack of safe distance between the two vehicles, which was caused by the Land Rover’s failure to adhere to the 30m safety distance.
She said it was Ong’s duty to ensure the safety distance, and to establish communications with the Bionix.
She did not find that the actions of the corporal who reversed the Bionix had eclipsed Ong’s wrongdoing, or broke the chain of causation. Instead, she ruled that the substantial cause of CFC Liu’s demise was Ong’s actions.
ARGUMENTS
On Friday (Apr 28), Ong’s lawyer Mr Thrumurgan Ramapiram argued that while Ong failed to communicate with the Bionix, another set of communications had also failed.
The unchallenged evidence was that the Bionix driver had not heard repeated instructions to stop, because the communications had failed, said Mr Thrumurgan.
He said that the Bionix was “unguided” when reversing because of this communication failure and that it was – for all intents and purposes – reversing “blindly”.
He alleged that checks on communications equipment were either not done, or not done properly.
He questioned if the incident would still have occurred if Ong had not ordered CFC Liu to overtake the Bionix, and if the Land Rover had remained a distance of 30m to 31m from the other vehicle.
In response, Deputy Public Prosecutor Hay Hung Chun said the defence was using a strawman argument and bringing up scenarios which were not the facts in issue.
He said the defence was asking the prosecution to prove a negative, when what the prosecution had proven was that it was Ong’s order to overtake the Bionix that had resulted in the accident.
Mr Hay said that Ong was an armoured trainer and would know that the Bionix would have to engage in its extrication drill in that scenario almost immediately.
The Bionix was reversing in the way it should have been, and there was nothing unexpected about it, he said.
He said in written submissions that there was no evidence that there was any breakdown in communications within the Bionix at the time, apart from what appeared to be a brief disruption in the intercom transmissions.
Mr Hay said the Bionix crew had testified that checks were performed on their Combat Vehicle Crew sets before the exercise commenced, and there were no communication issues throughout the mission except for “minor disruptions which were normal for these communication systems”.
He said the lower court judge had failed to give sufficient weight to aggravating factors, and incorrectly took into account “irrelevant factors”.
Justice See Kee Oon, who heard the cross appeals, adjourned the case. A decision will be made at a later date.