SINGAPORE: A woman was acquitted of littering at a Geylang bazaar, after the judge found inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.
Ms Suhana Mahamudin had claimed trial to one charge of littering under the Environmental Public Health Act. She was accused of throwing a cigarette butt on a pavement next to a bazaar at Block 845, Geylang Road on Apr 16, 2022.
The case was mounted by a National Environment Agency (NEA) prosecutor, with two NEA enforcement officers testifying what they had seen on that day.
In her defence, Ms Suhana insisted that she had not thrown any cigarette and that it was “impossible” for her to do so as she was preparing burgers during a busy period.
Her colleagues, the cashier and the cook at the stall, testified for her and said Ms Suhana was packing burgers and had not left to smoke as it was a peak hour for business.
The prosecution’s case was based on the evidence of two NEA enforcement officers, Mr Muhammad Farhan Hanafi Tey and Ms Sharminii Ponnudurai.
The pair were on duty at 845 Geylang Road on that day, where a tent had been set up for Hari Raya Bazaar festivities.
Mr Farhan testified that he saw Ms Suhana smoking in the bazaar. He said he had unobstructed views of her from where they were standing, about 7m away.
Mr Farhan said he saw Ms Suhana extinguish a cigarette on a metal railing before throwing the butt on a pavement.
Mr Farhan observed Ms Suhana for about five minutes before telling his partner that Ms Suhana had littered.
His partner had not seen the act herself. The pair then entered the bazaar to look for Ms Suhana, and Mr Farhan turned on his body-worn camera.
When they heard about the alleged littering, Ms Suhana’s colleagues asked if there was any photographic evidence.
A notice to attend court was issued to Ms Suhana, who took it and walked away.
DEFENCE
Ms Suhana was self-represented. She said she was busy serving and preparing food inside the stall at about 5pm that day when the officers approached her.
She tried to explain that she had been busy serving a customer and that it was impossible for her to be smoking at the railing while a customer was waiting.
However, because it was a busy period, she did not argue and followed the officers’ instructions to hand over her identity card. She felt frustrated and snatched the notice to attend court, saying she would explain in court.
Ms Suhana’s colleagues testified that it was not possible for her to go on a smoke break on her own, as she needed to prepare the bread while another worker was preparing the patties.
One colleague testified that he would take smoke breaks with Ms Suhana, but that their smoke break had been at about 2pm that day.
He said he would have known if Ms Suhana had gone for a smoke break as nobody could take over her role as they each had their jobs in the assembly line.
JUDGE’S DECISION
District Judge A Sangeetha said the case boiled down to the word of Mr Farhan against Ms Suhana’s, and on the quality of the enforcement officer’s identification of Ms Suhana as the perpetrator.
Judge Sangeetha said she did not find the photos of the vantage point from the prosecution helpful, as they were taken about six months after the incident and did not show the view, angle, distance or vantage point from where the officers said they were observing Ms Suhana.
While Mr Farhan claimed to have an unobstructed view of Ms Suhana, the judge looked at footage from the body-worn camera and said it was unlikely.
Mr Farhan and his partner gave differing accounts on where Ms Suhana had been standing when they purportedly saw her smoking.
“More importantly, the way (Mr Farhan) came to identify the accused as the perpetrator raised some concerns for me,” said the judge.
“The evidence before the court was that the perpetrator had stepped into one of the stalls inside the bazaar. Unfortunately, no evidence was led on how (Mr Farhan) identified the accused as the perpetrator.”
Judge Sangeetha said this was crucial, as the perpetrator must have been unmasked while smoking, but the body-worn camera showed Ms Suhana with a mask on.
“Under these circumstances, it was puzzling that (Mr Farhan), who despite stating details such as the colour of the cigarette butt and the hand used by the perpetrator, provided no details regarding the perpetrator’s appearance other than merely identifying the accused as the perpetrator,” she said.
The judge noted that the prosecution had chosen not to tender the notice to attend court, issued to Ms Suhana at the bazaar, in evidence.
This fortified her decision to acquit Ms Suhana, said the judge.
Because she did not have the notice to attend court to refer to, the judge had to refer to an earlier charge, which stated that the offence took place at the generator room instead of the bazaar.
“No explanation on this discrepancy was provided by (the NEA officers). In particular, (Ms Sharminii) who was the officer issuing the notice to attend court, did not state what was keyed into the ticketing device as the offence location and whether this was reflected in the amended charge,” said Judge Sangeetha.
The generator room was about 20m from the burger stall.
“The lack of clarification by the prosecution seen together with the absence of the notice to attend court only raised more doubt in my mind,” said the judge.
She said the burden is “always on the prosecution to first prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt”. However, in this case, there were “significant inconsistencies” in the prosecution’s case that generated reasonable doubt.
Had Ms Suhana been convicted of littering, she could have been fined up to S$2,000 as a first offender, S$4,000 as a second offender or S$10,000 if it was her third or subsequent conviction.