A court heard on Friday ( Mar 22 ) that a woman who drove off with a cyclist on the bonnet of her car in a popular incident in Katong has previously been found guilty of drink driving, running a red light, and parking illegally.
At the same hearing, the lawyer for 50-year-old Singaporean Elaine Michele Ow made protracted demands for his client, including asking for a great good if possible, and forging a lengthy list of demands for her client.
Show also disputed her previous conviction history, claiming that her spouse or sister was the one who committed some of her parking offenses rather than her.
At one level, defense attorney R S Bajwa asked the prosecutor to place herself in a vicious cyclist’s lap at the time.
District Judge Janet Wang replied swiftly:” No, I do certainly act that way”.
She continued, adding that” two wrongs do not make a appropriate” and that “any fair and sage people” like Mr. Bajwa would simply quit their car and call the police.
Sentence was delayed because the prosecution must understand the allegations made by Video regarding her visitors violations.
According to the trial, Show was convicted of sip driving in 2006.
In 2004, 2005, 2009 and on two occasions in 2010, she parked opposite a constant bright column and paid a structure good, the lawyer’s documents state.
She was given a composition excellent in 2010 for parking on an uninterrupted double yellow line.
She ran a red light and collected a texture fee in March 2021.
The defense argued that when his customer received notice of structure for some of the crimes, the authorities might not have known who the pilot was and that Video had simply paid the fine.
Both factors also need to prove their positions regarding whether and how much a driving restrictions should be applied to Show.
THE Event
Video admitted guilt next month to one matter of a careless omission that threatened cyclist Nicolette Tan Shi’en’s safety.
She had driven her car to the store i12 Katong on June 2 to teach a cooking school along Also Road South.
When they crossed a pass road, Tan, a solicitor, was cycling along the same path and thought Ow’s vehicle was very close to her.
At a customers light where she confronted Show, Tan then followed her and caught up with her at a traffic light.
Video repeatedly tried to veer away from Tan, who had positioned herself in a way that made it difficult for her to leave safely.
Video expressed her regret, but the situation re-escalation when Tan’s bicycle and her car door came into contact with her.
After that, Video picked up Tan’s bicycle and took it to the side of the road, claiming that she needed to attend a school.
Tan jumped onto the cap of Ow’s car when Show attempted to inch forth and nudged Tan’s thighs.
Video muttered “okay” to herself and accelerated, driving off with Tan clinging on to her hat and banging on the visor.
Tan slipped off at the store’s car park about 100 meters away and kept holding onto one of the driver’s windscreen wipers until a coerced by passers-by convinced her to let go of it.
She visited a physician for muscle strains and a follow-up attend about a month later.
SENTENCING Explanations
Deputy Public Prosecutors Sunil Nair and Mark Chia of the deputy public prosecutor requested a driving restrictions for Show but did not specify the duration.
An criminal is imprisoned for no more than 14 days under an SDO, which is based on a community. By allowing an criminal to spend their time in prison, it is intended to deter criminal activity but does not keep a legal record.
Mr. Bajwa, the attorney for the defense, argued vehemently against imposing an SDO, claiming that his customer is simply unsuitable for prison.
He provided a medical report to highlight Ow’s history of depression and anxiety, as well as how the incident triggered a previous one and activated her fight-or-fly response.
He acknowledged, however, that the document did not establish any direct or contributing factors to the offence.
Judge Wang claimed that the panic occurred several years ago and that Ow had given up receiving treatment.
Mr. Bajwa argued that this situation was unique and that the court should have adapted its strategy accordingly.
He said” there’s no query” that the offender was the rider and not his consumer.
The attorney claimed that Ow had reversed five or six times to try to leave and that she had done all right up until the point where she drove off.
” There was a point your customer crossed the Rubicon”, replied the judge. When the survivor was positioned in front of her, and she was slackly moving. She could have just stopped and not ( driven ) on. But she was anxious and in a haste to proceed to her class, which ( seemed ) to be her priority, singularly”.
Markets BETWEEN Determine AND Army
After being “harassed” by the rider who was attempting to block her every attempt to leave, Mr. Bajwa requested Judge Wang to throw herself in his client’s shoes at the time.
” No, I do not work that way”, said Judge Wang.
She said Ow’s position should not be ignored.
” In the first place, I think she drove badly”, said the judge, calling Ow’s driving “inconsiderate”.
But, she stated that the rider’s matter may be dealt with individually.
Mr. Bajwa claimed there was no conclusive evidence that Video had actually touched her while driving on the slip road or that the cyclist had been hurt by Ow’s negligence.
At this point, Video kept shaking her head in the wharf.
Mr. Bajwa continued to argue that Tan asked his customer to apologize and that she had asked her to leave.
“Cyclist says: ‘ I do n’t care ( that ) you are late.’ These are all controversial comments being made in a very tumultuous environment, according to Mr. Bajwa.
” And to ( Ow’s ) credit, she gets out of the car, she moves the bicycle away, and when she returned to the car, you can see how harassed she looks. That tells me she was actually… in a disturbed state of mind”, said Mr Bajwa.
He argued that the passenger’s injuries were caused by his client rather than by the rider’s personal actions.
The prosecutor responded that it was a result of the whole series of events.
” So you would simply renovate ahead if you had someone standing in front of your car”? she asked the attorney.
” I may avoid”, replied Mr Bajwa. ” And she avoided. Five, six days”.
” Yes, but she did pull on later, so that is my place”, replied the prosecutor. You may simply stop your car, call the police, and deal with this person, Mr. Bajwa, in the interests of sensible and sane people.
Mr Bajwa said he was making a particular appeal not to take her to prison, even for the SDO, as she had” suffered but little” in prison.
He added that since this was a one-time affair, there was no need for a driving ban.
” That’s where you’re wrong, Mr Bajwa”, said the judge. ” That’s where her faith story is important”.
A good, as the defense had requested, would not be effective for common deterrence, the prosecution argued.
Although the cyclist was the aggressor in this instance, public deterrence should still be used if reckless driving is the issue, according to Mr. Chia.
Judge Wang inquired at the conclusion of the receiving whether Mr. Bajwa was great because he appeared concerned.
” I generally look worried for my client, your honour”, he said.
” That is good”, Judge Wang replied.
For additional submissions to get made and for clarification of Ow’s faith background to be made, the case was adjourned for about three months.
Tan will enter a guilty plea on April 17, the day before Ow’s event is scheduled to get heard for punishment.