The Sun
by Hemananthani Sivanandam
Khoo was charged under section 41(1) and with an alternative charge under section 43 of the Road Transport Act 1987. He pleaded guilty to the alternative charge under which one can be fined not less than RM4,000 and not more than RM10,000 and be jailed for up to 12 months.
The case attracted the attention of many people and some questioned if the fine was sufficient.
Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee said the establishment of a sentencing council comprising judges, deputy public prosecutors and lawyers to recommend guidelines on sentences, and thereafter, training, would ensure consistency and correctness of sentences.
Subang MP R. Sivarasah, however, said people should not jump to conclusions without knowing the facts of the case.
"The person with the detailed facts of the case is the judge."
According to Lim, sentencing is a complex process of assessing what is fair and just and applying the often conflicting principles of deterrence, prevention, retribution and rehabilitation.
"There is no unanimous consent by society to a single set of rules on punishment," he said.
He said it is difficult to assess the appropriateness of a particular sentence merely on the basis of media reports as there may be mitigating circumstances in a particular case that justified a perceived lenient sentence.
"Furthermore, in an offence involving a reckless act, the degree of recklessness affects the level of culpability and hence, the severity of sentence.
"It would be unwise for the public and media to make an uninformed view of the appropriateness of a particular sentence without the benefit of all the facts of the case."
Sivarasa, who is also a lawyer, pointed out that many factors had to be looked into before making a decision.
"Was he (Ong) properly parked on the highway,and was Khoo speeding beyond the limit? If Khoo was not speeding and Ong had stepped out or obstructed his way, then it could have been a situation where Khoo could not avoid him."
However, he said that if Khoo was guilty of speeding, the punishment imposed was light.
"But that’s the problem. It’s an unfortunate and sad situation but people need to know the facts before coming to conclusions."
It is understood that the Attorney General’s Chambers is appealing for a more deterrent sentence.
by Hemananthani Sivanandam
PETALING JAYA ( May 15, 2011) : Is a man’s life only worth RM5,000? What message is being sent to the public when reckless motorists who cause deaths get off with a slap on the wrist?
These are the questions on the minds of many people following the May 3 sentencing of salesman Khoo Kim Chuan who literally walked free after knocking down a Good Samaritan who had gone to the aid of two other accident victims.
Khoo was fined RM5,000 in default of five months’ jail by an Ampang magistrate’s court after he pleaded guilty to driving recklessly and accidentally causing the death of lorry driver Ong Kim Koon.
Ong was hit by Khoo’s MPV while rescuing a couple along the Middle Ring Road 2 on April 11. His right leg was crushed and later amputated. He died from infections on April 23.
These are the questions on the minds of many people following the May 3 sentencing of salesman Khoo Kim Chuan who literally walked free after knocking down a Good Samaritan who had gone to the aid of two other accident victims.
Khoo was fined RM5,000 in default of five months’ jail by an Ampang magistrate’s court after he pleaded guilty to driving recklessly and accidentally causing the death of lorry driver Ong Kim Koon.
Ong was hit by Khoo’s MPV while rescuing a couple along the Middle Ring Road 2 on April 11. His right leg was crushed and later amputated. He died from infections on April 23.
Khoo was charged under section 41(1) and with an alternative charge under section 43 of the Road Transport Act 1987. He pleaded guilty to the alternative charge under which one can be fined not less than RM4,000 and not more than RM10,000 and be jailed for up to 12 months.
The case attracted the attention of many people and some questioned if the fine was sufficient.
Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee said the establishment of a sentencing council comprising judges, deputy public prosecutors and lawyers to recommend guidelines on sentences, and thereafter, training, would ensure consistency and correctness of sentences.
Subang MP R. Sivarasah, however, said people should not jump to conclusions without knowing the facts of the case.
"The person with the detailed facts of the case is the judge."
According to Lim, sentencing is a complex process of assessing what is fair and just and applying the often conflicting principles of deterrence, prevention, retribution and rehabilitation.
"There is no unanimous consent by society to a single set of rules on punishment," he said.
He said it is difficult to assess the appropriateness of a particular sentence merely on the basis of media reports as there may be mitigating circumstances in a particular case that justified a perceived lenient sentence.
"Furthermore, in an offence involving a reckless act, the degree of recklessness affects the level of culpability and hence, the severity of sentence.
"It would be unwise for the public and media to make an uninformed view of the appropriateness of a particular sentence without the benefit of all the facts of the case."
Sivarasa, who is also a lawyer, pointed out that many factors had to be looked into before making a decision.
"Was he (Ong) properly parked on the highway,and was Khoo speeding beyond the limit? If Khoo was not speeding and Ong had stepped out or obstructed his way, then it could have been a situation where Khoo could not avoid him."
However, he said that if Khoo was guilty of speeding, the punishment imposed was light.
"But that’s the problem. It’s an unfortunate and sad situation but people need to know the facts before coming to conclusions."
It is understood that the Attorney General’s Chambers is appealing for a more deterrent sentence.
No comments:
Post a Comment