1 The Accused, Mr Png Chuck Kwang George @ Poon Chak Kwang, claimed trial to a charge under section 323A of the Penal Code 1871 (“Penal Code”) for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to one Lee Choi Tong (the “Victim”). The charge states as follows:

2  On 13 February 2026, after careful consideration of the testimony of all witnesses, the evidence adduced at trial, and the submissions of both parties, I found the Accused guilty and convicted him accordingly. On 12 March 2026, after considering the sentencing submissions of both parties, I imposed a sentence of 16 weeks’ imprisonment.

3 The Accused, being dissatisfied with his conviction and sentence, has since filed an appeal and is currently out on bail pending appeal.

4 I begin by setting out my reasons for finding the Accused guilty before turning to my decision on sentence.

5 At the material time, the Accused resided at Block 279A Sengkang East Avenue #XX-XXX Singapore 541279 with his wife, Mdm Teo Tock Huang (“Mdm Teo”), while the Victim resided at Block 279A Sengkang East Avenue #XX-XXX Singapore 541279 with his wife, Mdm Low Gek Mui (“Mdm Low”). ¹ The Accused and the Victim were neighbours whose units were opposite one another. ²

6 The Victim was reliant on a walking stick to ambulate at the material time. ³

7 On 20 August 2023, at or about 6.00pm, an argument arose between the Victim and Mdm Teo. ⁴

8 It is undisputed that the argument led to the Accused calling “999” for police assistance at or about 6.45pm, ⁵ although the Prosecution and the Defence presented different versions as to what transpired in between.

9 At or about 6.59pm, the police arrived at the scene ⁶ and a wooden stick (i.e. Exhibit P11) was subsequently seized as a case exhibit ⁷ .

10 At or about 9.00pm, the Victim was conveyed by ambulance to Sengkang General Hospital (“SKGH”), where the Victim was examined and found to have suffered the following injuries ⁸ :

(a) Scalp laceration at the right frontal region measuring 2cm x 0.2cm x 0.2cm;

(b) Bruise measuring 6cm x 6cm with a 1cm skin tear on the right forearm extensor aspect; and

(c) Right ring finger distal phalanx contusion with swelling over the pulp of the finger.

11 The Victim underwent X-rays of his right forearm and right hand. He received toilet and suturing for his scalp laceration and a buddy splint was applied for his right ring finger injury. He was discharged on 21 August 2023 at about 12.15am with 10 days of hospitalisation leave, a scheduled follow-up appointment with Orthopaedic Surgery and a referral to a polyclinic for wound care and suture removal of his scalp laceration. ⁹

12 A report on the Victim’s X-rays was issued on 21 August 2023 ¹⁰ , and the Victim was thereafter diagnosed with an acute mildly displaced fracture of the right radial neck with volar dislocation of the radial head. The Victim was placed in a backslab and given an early orthopaedic appointment. He returned to SKGH for his orthopaedic appointment on 23 August 2023, and repeat X-rays of his right and left elbow were taken. ¹¹ A further review on 20 September 2023 noted that the Victim was pain-free and had full supination and pronation with a similar range of motion in both elbows. ¹²

13 The fracture was conservatively managed. ¹³ The Victim did not attend the last orthopaedic appointment on 19 October 2023 and there was no further orthopaedic follow-up thereafter. ¹⁴

14 The Accused and Mdm Teo did not sustain any injuries arising from the incident on 20 August 2023. ¹⁵

15 The Prosecution called a total of 5 witnesses for its case:

16 I do not propose to set out the evidence of all the Prosecution’s witnesses in detail in these grounds. I highlight instead the salient parts of the testimonies of the material witnesses, where relevant.

17 According to the Victim (PW1), the Accused repeatedly hit the top of his head with a hollow metal rod which caused the Victim to fall onto the floor and bleed. ¹⁶ The Victim testified that when the Accused continued hitting him, he raised his right arm to defend himself and was struck on his right arm. ¹⁷ The Victim further testified that the Accused’s strikes caused him to feel “pain”. ¹⁸

18 Mdm Low (PW3) was a factual witness called by the Prosecution. She testified that she heard a lot of noise while in her room. When she opened the door of her flat and stood behind the gate, she saw that the Victim had already fallen to the ground and that the Accused was “repeatedly hitting” his head. She further testified that she was “very scared” that the Victim was going to die as there was “a lot of bleeding”. ¹⁹

19 The Accused (DW1) elected to give evidence at the trial.

20 The Accused admitted in his statements ²⁰ that he hit the Victim’s head with a wooden stick (i.e. Exhibit P11) once.

21 At trial, the Accused testified that upon hearing a loud argument between his wife and the Victim outside his flat, he emerged from the flat and observed the Victim raising his walking stick “above his head” with both hands, intending to “wallop” his wife. The Accused then grabbed a stick (i.e. Exhibit P11) from behind his door but claimed he had “no intention of doing anything” to the Victim. ²¹

22 According to the Accused, the Victim then turned to him and raised his walking stick to “wallop” the Accused from the Victim’s right side, but the Accused managed to block the blow using Exhibit P11. The Victim then raised his walking stick again to hit the Accused from the Victim’s left, but the Accused again managed to block the attack successfully. ²²

23 The Accused further testified that when he perceived “an opening, a chance to hit” ²³ , he gave the Victim “one knock” on the head, causing the Victim to become dazed and appearing to be “staring... in[to] outer space”. ²⁴ The Victim staggered backwards and fell, with his arms brushing against two unlocked bicycles which fell on him. ²⁵ The Accused then noticed blood on the Victim’s head. ²⁶

24 Mdm Teo (DW2), the Accused’s wife, testified that the Victim initially attempted to attack her but turned his attention to the Accused when the Accused rushed out of his flat. She observed the Victim raise his walking stick in two separate attempts to hit the Accused, both of which were successfully blocked by the Accused. According to Mdm Teo, it was only after these two blocked attacks that the Accused hit the Victim on the forehead once before stopping. Mdm Teo further testified that the Victim then became dazed, staggered backwards, and fell to the ground. ²⁷

25 The relevant provisions in the Penal Code in relation to voluntarily causing hurt which causes grievous hurt are as follows:

26 The case therefore turned on three key issues:

(a) First, whether the Accused caused grievous hurt to the Victim by (i) hitting him on the head with a wooden stick and causing him to fall; or (ii) hitting him on the right arm with a wooden stick;

(b) Second, whether the Accused intended to cause hurt to the Victim; and

(c) Third, whether the Accused could establish any defence to the charge.

27 It is undisputed that the Victim suffered a mildly displaced fracture of the right radial neck.

28 Dr Siow Wei Ming (“Dr Siow”) (PW2) was the Victim’s treating doctor at SKGH. In a Medical Report ²⁸ dated 8 July 2024, prepared by a junior doctor on Dr Siow’s behalf, the Victim was diagnosed with a “mildly displaced fracture of the right radial neck”. Dr Siow testified that the absence of healing signs in the radial neck fracture, as evidenced by the X-rays, indicated that this was a "fresh fracture" that had occurred "within the last few weeks or days before the X-ray was taken" (on 20 August 2023). ²⁹ This medical evidence therefore showed that the fracture likely occurred during the incident on 20 August 2023, rather than from any pre-existing condition or earlier injury.

29 Dr Patil Satish Shantaram (“Dr Patil”) (PW4) also examined the Victim at SKGH and documented his injuries in a Medical Report ³⁰ dated 31 August 2023. Dr Patil diagnosed the Victim with a scalp laceration requiring stitches, a right forearm contusion, and a possible right ring finger distal phalanx fracture for which a buddy splint was applied. ³¹ Dr Patil testified that all three injuries were consistent with the Victim being hit by a stick similar to Exhibit P11. ³²

30 The Victim’s fracture of the right radial neck amounted to grievous hurt as defined in section 320(g) of the Penal Code.

31 The question therefore was whether the Accused had caused the grievous hurt by (i) hitting the Victim on the head with a wooden stick and causing him to fall; or (ii) hitting him on the right arm with a wooden stick.

32 For the reasons below, I found that each of the Accused’s acts described at (i) and (ii) above was, in itself, a direct cause of the Victim sustaining grievous hurt.

33 During his examination-in-chief, the Victim testified that the Accused had “hit the top of [his] head” repeatedly and that when he fell, he raised his right hand to defend himself and was struck on the right arm. ³³ However, during cross-examination, the Victim testified that the Accused only hit his head repeatedly and did not strike his arm. ³⁴ When asked to explain this inconsistency during re-examination, the Victim attributed it to the passage of time, stating it was “so long ago” and that he could not remember. ³⁵

34 Nevertheless, I noted that the Victim remained consistent throughout his testimony (including during cross-examination) that he was struck repeatedly on the head, and that after falling, he had used his right arm to “block” the Accused’s attacks.

35 I was therefore of the view that the Victim might have been primarily focused on where the Accused was directing his strikes and had sought to emphasise the same in his court testimony. This would account for the inconsistency regarding whether his right arm was actually struck during his attempts to block the blows.

36 I found the Victim to be a credible witness who was attempting to tell the truth as best as he could recall it. The inconsistency regarding whether he recalled his arm being struck did not undermine his testimony on the material aspects of the incident, particularly given his consistent account of being struck repeatedly on the head and his defensive actions.

37 Importantly, the Victim’s account that he used his right arm defensively during the attack is consistent with and supports the finding that the Accused caused the Victim's right radial neck fracture by directly striking his right arm while the Victim was attempting to defend himself.

38 This finding is further corroborated by Dr Patil’s testimony that all three injuries (i.e. a scalp laceration requiring stitches, a right forearm contusion, and a possible right ring finger distal phalanx fracture) were consistent with the Victim being hit by a stick similar to Exhibit P11. ³⁶

39 As for the object used to hit him, even though the Victim testified that it was a “hollow metal rod”, I found that the object used by the Accused was Exhibit P11 for the following reasons:

(a) The Victim testified that his “vision [was] not good” since he “was a child” ³⁷ but that it was the “thing that was from the curtains”. ³⁸ While the Victim's poor eyesight might have affected his ability to accurately identify the material composition of the object, it did not undermine his ability to identify it as the object used to strike him, particularly given his description of it as something associated with curtains, which was consistent with Exhibit P11;

(b) The Accused testified that Exhibit P11 was indeed the “leftover of a curtain rod” ³⁹ and came with a plastic cover which the Accused did not take out and which made it “[look] like… steel” but was actually made of wood ⁴⁰ ; and

(c) Investigation Officer Gautam Kevin Ramesh (PW5) testified that there were no other items resembling a stick at the scene, apart from the stick which the Accused had pointed to. ⁴¹

40 The Victim’s account was corroborated by Mdm Low, who remained consistent in the material aspects of both her statement ⁴² and court testimony, specifically that the Victim was hit repeatedly and fell to the ground, noting that “whatever [she] saw was very deeply ingrained in [her]”. ⁴³

41 While there were some inconsistencies in other aspects of her evidence (such as whether she had observed the events immediately prior to the Victim falling to the ground, or whether the Victim had already fallen to the ground when she came to the main door), I found such inconsistencies to be immaterial.

42 I accepted Mdm Low’s explanation given for the inconsistencies, namely that she was “very, very scared” while witnessing her husband being hit “non-stop” with “blood… flowing” and was only “thinking if [her] husband would die”. ⁴⁴ Given the emotional distress and shock that she was in and her overwhelming fear that her husband might die at that time, I found it understandable that Mdm Low could not recall peripheral details with accuracy while the central events remained vivid in her memory. I therefore found Mdm Low’s evidence to be reliable.

43 In contrast to the credible evidence of the Victim and Mdm Low, I found that the Accused's alternative explanations lacked credibility.

44 I agreed with the Prosecution’s Closing Submissions that the Accused’s claim of not hitting the Victim’s arm, and his suggestion that the Victim’s fracture had possibly been caused by the Victim’s bicycles falling on him, were a belated afterthought:

(a) The Victim confirmed during cross-examination that he did not fall onto the two bicycles outside his flat. ⁴⁵

(b) The Accused’s First Information Report ⁴⁶ on 20 August 2023 at 6.45pm, made approximately 2 minutes after the incident, only stated that the Accused had “reacted in self-[defence] by hitting [the Victim’s] head” and did not include any reference to the bicycles. Given that this report was made when the events would have been freshest in the Accused's mind, the absence of any such reference strongly suggested that the bicycle explanation was a subsequent embellishment rather than a genuine recollection.

(c) The Accused’s own statement ⁴⁷ recorded on 20 August 2023 at 8.30pm, less than 2 hours after the incident, stated that the Victim “fell and hit against his bicycles”, and not that the bicycles had fallen on him.

(d) Mdm Teo’s statement ⁴⁸ recorded on 20 August 2023 at 8.35pm stated that the Victim “fell onto [the] floor next to his bicycle parked along the corridor”. There was likewise no reference to any bicycle falling on the Victim.

(e) Even though the Accused claimed that he saw two bicycles fall on top of the Victim, he also testified that he “[did not] know” whether the bicycles “hit any part of the body or not” as “it was quite a distance away”. ⁴⁹

45 Regardless, even on the Accused’s own account, he had admitted to “strik[ing]” or “hitting” the Victim's head with Exhibit P11, which led to the Victim being in a “daze”, “stagger[ing] backwards” and “[falling] backwards”. According to the Accused’s court testimony, as the Victim fell, his hands knocked against the bicycles, which fell on him. ⁵⁰

46 Even assuming that (a) the Accused only hit the Victim’s head; and (b) the Victim's bicycles had caused the fracture by falling on him, I agreed with the Prosecution’s Closing Submissions that the Accused's initial act of hitting the Victim's head remained the proximate cause of the injury as there was no break in the chain of causation between the Accused’s act and the Victim’s injury. The fall of the bicycles (if it occurred at all) was a direct consequence of the Accused's act of striking the Victim and causing him to stagger and fall.

47 It was therefore clear from the evidence that the Accused's act of either hitting the Victim on the head and causing him to fall, or by hitting him on the right arm, was the direct cause of the Victim sustaining grievous hurt.

48 I found that Mdm Teo was not a credible witness, and that her account of the events was inherently incredible and inconsistent.

49 The Prosecution sought to undermine Mdm Teo’s credibility by highlighting inconsistencies between her police statement ⁵¹ and her court testimony.

50 Mdm Teo’s statement ⁵² recorded on 20 August 2023 indicated that (a) the Victim had “started hitting [her] main gate with his walking stick”; (b) the Accused had “opened the gate while holding on to a wooden stick to defend [her]”; and (c) the Victim “fell onto [the] floor next to his bicycle parked along the corridor”.

51 With regard to (a) above, in her court testimony, Mdm Teo made no reference to the Victim hitting her gate with his walking stick. When questioned, Mdm Teo claimed that she was “not very sure” and “really [could not] recall” whether the Victim did hit her gate with his walking stick. ⁵³ Mdm Teo further claimed that she could not remember what she said when her statement was recorded as it was “so late”, and she and the Accused were “very, very tired” and “very stressed”. ⁵⁴ Mdm Teo subsequently alleged that the police made a mistake, ⁵⁵ and that there was a “misinterpretation by the police”. ⁵⁶

52 As for (b), Mdm Teo’s statement indicated that she was inside the Accused’s flat at the material time (i.e. she had yet to leave her flat to throw rubbish), but she testified in court that she was “outside the house”. ⁵⁷ When queried, Mdm Teo could not explain why the police had recorded it that way ⁵⁸ , but accepted that the account in her statement and that in her court testimony were different. ⁵⁹

53 In relation to (c), Mdm Teo’s statement indicated that the Victim fell next to his bicycle, whereas in court, Mdm Teo testified that the Victim’s bicycles fell on him. ⁶⁰ Mdm Teo again accepted that the accounts in her statement and in her court testimony were inconsistent. ⁶¹

54 Furthermore, Mdm Teo testified that the Victim had raised his walking stick with one hand ⁶² , while the Accused himself testified that the Victim had raised it with both hands. ⁶³ When confronted with this discrepancy, Mdm Teo claimed that she could not remember as the incident had taken place some two years ago and she was “very terrified” at that time. ⁶⁴ She subsequently claimed that the Victim “should” have used one hand, and “later on, maybe he used both”, but that she could not say with certainty. ⁶⁵

55 In light of these numerous and significant inconsistencies between Mdm Teo's police statement and her court testimony, coupled with her inability to provide coherent explanations for these discrepancies, I found Mdm Teo’s evidence to be wholly unreliable. Her shifting accounts, convenient lapses in memory when confronted with contradictions, and her tendency to blame external factors for inconsistencies in her testimony, collectively demonstrated a lack of credibility that further undermined the reliability of her evidence.

56 The second issue is whether the Accused had hit the Victim on the head and caused him to fall, or hit him on the right arm, with the intention of causing hurt to the Victim. To be clear, the Prosecution need only establish that the Accused had hit the Victim on the head or on the arm intending to cause or knowing himself to be likely to cause minor injuries to the Victim. The Prosecution is not required to prove that the Accused had intended to cause grievous hurt, provided that the Accused’s action did in fact result in grievous hurt to the Victim (see the Illustration to s 323A of the Penal Code).

57 In the present matter, the Accused admitted in his statements ⁶⁶ and in his court testimony to “strik[ing]” or “hitting” the Victim's head with Exhibit P11 once when there was “an opening, a chance to hit” ⁶⁷ . These descriptions make clear that the Accused himself recognised his conduct as intentional rather than accidental. A deliberate strike to the head with a wooden stick (even going by the Accused’s own account) is, by its very nature, intended to cause hurt.

58 Further, the Accused’s own description of the Victim’s reaction after being hit, specifically that the Victim was in a “daze”, “stagger[ing] backwards” and “[falling] backwards”, ⁶⁸ demonstrated that the Accused had hit the Victim with considerable force. The degree of force employed and the conscious act of using a wooden stick to hit the Victim’s head, a vulnerable part of the body, would necessarily have inflicted bodily pain. This further showed that the Accused must have intended to cause hurt.

59 I therefore found that the Accused possessed the requisite intention to cause hurt to the Victim when he used Exhibit P11 to hit the Victim.

60 The Accused submitted that he was exercising his right of private defence under section 97 of the Penal Code when he hit the Victim on 20 August 2023, as he was “trying to defend his wife against the threat of force by the [V]ictim when [the Victim] raised his walking stick in order to hit her”. ⁶⁹

61 The relevant provisions in the Penal Code in relation to the right of private defence are as follows:

62 However, I found that the Accused could not establish the right of private defence, for the reasons set out below:

(a) First, the Accused was not using force to defend himself or his wife;

(b) Second, even if the right of private defence arose:

(i) The Accused had inflicted more harm than was reasonably necessary in the circumstances (see s 98(1) of the Penal Code); and

(ii) There was reasonable opportunity to have recourse to the protection of a public authority in the circumstances (see s 98(2) of the Penal Code).

63 On the evidence, I was satisfied that the Victim would not have been in a position to threaten the Accused or Mdm Teo at the material time, for the reasons set out below.

64 The Victim testified that he could not even walk or stand without his walking stick, let alone use it to hit someone on the head. ⁷⁰

65 The Victim’s testimony was supported by Dr Siow, who testified that the Victim was admitted to hospital around June 2023 (i.e. approximately 2 months before the incident) due to severe knee arthritis. ⁷¹ Dr Siow further testified that a walking stick was recommended for the Victim as it would be “extremely dangerous” for him to walk without one since there was a “very much higher chance of him falling down”. ⁷² The medical evidence therefore demonstrated the Victim's significant physical vulnerability and his dependence on a mobility aid for basic stability.

66 The Accused's own testimony further reinforced the extent of the Victim's frailty. When queried in court, the Accused confirmed that from the first time he observed the Victim using a walking stick, he noticed that the Victim consistently walked with the aid of one. ⁷³

67 Yet according to the Accused's own testimony, the Victim was "fit enough to lift" the walking stick on the day of the incident, which the Accused himself found "strange" and was "very surprised" by. ⁷⁴ The Accused was also “so surprised” that the Victim was “able to lift the walking stick above his head” in an attempt to hit his wife. ⁷⁵ The Accused expressed being "so surprised" once more that the Victim could hold up his walking stick with both hands such that he “[would not] be supported” and would be able to “stand on his own… [t]hree times”. ⁷⁶ He was similarly “surprised” that the Victim was “still fit to use force to swing at [him] without falling”. ⁷⁷

68 The Accused's repeated expressions of surprise at the Victim’s ability to lift his walking stick and stand unsupported are telling. They revealed the Accused’s own recognition of the Victim's physical limitations and further undermined any suggestion that the Victim posed a genuine threat.

69 Given that the Victim required assistance merely to remain upright and that even lifting his walking stick was surprising to the Accused, I found that the Victim could not have posed any credible threat to the Accused or Mdm Teo.

70 The Accused claimed that he was “prepared” when he left his flat armed with Exhibit P11 “should something happen” (for example, if the Victim “want[ed] to hit [him] or something like that”). ⁷⁸ Such a claim was difficult to reconcile with any genuine belief that he faced a credible threat, and pointed instead to premeditation.

71 Further, the Accused was unable to give a consistent account of the supposed threat posed by the Victim to himself or to Mdm Teo.

72 As is clear from the Accused’s statement ⁷⁹ , both the Accused and Mdm Teo were inside the flat when the Victim allegedly used the walking stick to “hit [the Accused’s] metal gate, as if trying to put it through [his] door to hit [Mdm Teo]”.

73 However, the Accused testified in Court that both the Victim and Mdm Teo were outside the Accused’s flat ⁸⁰ when an argument occurred and the Victim allegedly “raised his walking stick and threatened in a… menacing manner”. ⁸¹

74 Additionally, while the Accused also claimed that the Victim raising his walking stick to hit his wife was the “main” part ⁸² and the “most important” point ⁸³ , this was conspicuously absent from his statements to the police, in particular Exhibit P4 (which was recorded less than 2 hours after the incident when the events would have been fresh in his memory). The Accused could only make a bare assertion that this detail had been “inadvertently missed out” ⁸⁴ by the police and that he could not read the handwriting ⁸⁵ on the statement, notwithstanding that he had signed it to confirm that it had been “read over” to him in English. ⁸⁶

75 The evidence therefore demonstrated that rather than responding to any genuine threat, the Accused’s act of deliberately arming himself with Exhibit P11 before leaving his flat indicated premeditation rather than defensive action.

76 Even if the Victim had raised his walking stick in an attempt to attack the Accused or Mdm Teo, the Accused could have employed alternative defensive measures, such as keeping his distance and staying out of the Victim’s striking range, continuing to use Exhibit P11 as a shield, or attempting to grab the Victim’s walking stick during a swing to prevent further strikes.

77 Instead, by the Accused’s own account, upon seeing “an opening, a chance to hit” ⁸⁷ the Victim’s head, he struck the Victim, which caused the Victim to stagger backwards “in a daze”, with his eyes “like staring into outer space”, before falling backwards. ⁸⁸ The Accused also testified that there was “a little bit of bleeding” from the Victim's head when he hit him. ⁸⁹

78 That the Victim reacted in such a manner (and this is based solely on the Accused's own account that he had hit the Victim only once on the head), makes it evident that the Accused had struck the Victim's head, a vulnerable part of the body, with considerable force, rather than merely giving “a tap” ⁹⁰ or “a knock” ⁹¹ , as the Accused alleged.

79 The Accused had clearly inflicted more harm than was reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

80 The Accused testified that both he and Mdm Teo did not have their mobile phones with them as their mobile phones and “land phone” were inside the flat. ⁹² The Accused further testified that he and his wife were “healthy” and that if they wanted to walk fast, they could “walk fast”, ⁹³ while the Victim had a walking stick and clearly could not “walk very fast” or “run”. ⁹⁴

81 Given that the Accused and Mdm Teo were positioned “very near in front” ⁹⁵ of their door at the material time, and were more mobile than the Victim, it was clear that they could have quickly retreated into their flat to contact the police using either their mobile phones or landline. This option was particularly viable given that the Victim, who required a walking stick for mobility, could not "walk very fast" or "run" and therefore posed no immediate risk of pursuit.

82 I therefore disagreed with the Defence’s Closing Submissions that there was “absolutely no way in which the Accused or his wife could rush back into the house to call for help”. ⁹⁶

83 Instead, I found that the Accused had deliberately chosen not to seek police assistance. This was not a case where such assistance was unavailable to him — it was a case where he had chosen not to avail himself of it.

84 This was reflected in his testimony, which revealed a fundamental rejection of official intervention. The Accused expressed the view that even after the police were involved, "nothing happens" and it was back to "square one". ⁹⁷

85 Instead of utilising the available protection of public authorities, the Accused chose to "face the problem" directly, driven by his belief that they "do not run away" from problems, ⁹⁸ and his concern that retreating (that is, if they just “run away and go into [their] flat and hide”), would embolden the other party in future encounters. ⁹⁹

86 The Accused's decision to take matters into his own hands, despite having a clear and reasonable opportunity to seek police protection, demonstrated that his subsequent actions were not born of necessity but of choice. His preference for direct confrontation over lawful recourse to a public authority therefore undermined any suggestion that his conduct was justified by the circumstances.

87 It therefore followed that the Accused could not rely on the right of private defence.

88 Having regard to the totality of the evidence, I was satisfied that the Prosecution had proven the charge against the Accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

89 I therefore found the Accused guilty and convicted him accordingly.

90 The prescribed punishment for an offence under s 323A of the Penal Code is imprisonment of up to five years, or a fine of up to $10,000, or both.

91 The Prosecution sought a sentence of 5 to 6 months’ imprisonment.

92 The Prosecution applied the three-step sentencing approach for offences under s 323A of the Penal Code as set out by the High Court in Ang Boon Han v Public Prosecutor [2024] 5 SLR 754 (“Ang Boon Han”).

93 At the first step of the sentencing approach, the Prosecution submitted that an indicative starting point of 6.5 to 7 months’ imprisonment would have been appropriate had the Accused faced a charge under s 325 of the Penal Code. Taking into account the overall severity of the injuries suffered by the Victim and the full range of sentences available under s 323A of the Penal Code, the Prosecution submitted an indicative starting point of 3 to 3.5 months’ imprisonment, with no further adjustments required given the high alignment between the fault element (i.e. the offender’s intention to cause simple hurt, or knowledge that the offender is likely to cause such hurt) and the physical element (i.e. the grievous hurt that actually resulted) in the present case. The Prosecution also submitted that the Victim’s frailty was known to the Accused prior to the incident, and that the Accused had hit the Victim with a weapon on a vulnerable part of his body with sufficient force to cause the Victim to become dazed before he fell. The Prosecution further submitted that it was “entirely foreseeable” ¹⁰⁰ that by hitting the Victim’s head with sufficient force as to cause an uncontrollable fall, or by hitting the Victim’s arm with Exhibit P11, the impact of the fall or the blow would cause the Victim to sustain a fracture to his arm.

94 At the second step of the sentencing approach, the Prosecution submitted that there should be an uplift from the indicative starting point of 3 to 3.5 months’ imprisonment to 5 to 6 months’ imprisonment, in light of the following aggravating factors:

(a) There was a degree of deliberation or premeditation, as well as the use of a weapon;

(b) The manner of the attack on the Victim was vicious and sustained. The Accused had targeted the Victim’s head, which is a particularly vulnerable part of the body, and had continued to hit the Victim after the latter fell and raised his right arm to defend himself;

(c) The Victim was vulnerable. He was approximately 81 years old at the material time, was unable to walk or stand without his walking stick, and had been diagnosed with severe knee arthritis.

95 At the third step of the sentencing approach, the Prosecution submitted that as the Accused had elected to claim trial, he was not entitled to a sentencing reduction.

96 The Defence submitted that the Accused had been a law-abiding citizen with no prior brushes with the law. The incident was “something that occurred out of the extraordinary” ¹⁰¹ , and arose when the Victim tried to attack Mdm Teo. The Defence further submitted that Exhibit P11 was not used as a weapon but was a remnant of a curtain rail that the Accused had kept for use in various household chores. The Accused claimed that that he had hit the Victim only once and stopped, and that he did not hit the Victim more than was necessary.

97 The Defence asked for a lighter sentence based on leniency, given that the Accused was 83 years old at the time of sentencing and that “a sentence of incarceration would be like imposing a life sentence on him” ¹⁰² .

98 The Defence referred to a newspaper report in the Straits Times dated 27 February 2026 concerning an accused person who had made an illegal U-turn, driven against the flow of traffic, and collided with another vehicle, leaving her passenger with a fractured rib. The Defence noted that in that case, whilst the prosecution acknowledged that the custodial threshold would ordinarily have been crossed in the circumstances, the prosecution submitted that a fine was nonetheless appropriate given that the accused had been partially misinformed by her passenger and was of advanced age.

99 The Defence further submitted that as the Accused was similarly an elderly person, the Court should take a compassionate view of his age and impose a fine in lieu of a custodial sentence.

100 When queried by the Court, the Defence Counsel acknowledged that he was unable to find any reported cases to support his position that a fine should be imposed in the present matter. ¹⁰³

101 I agreed with the Prosecution that the applicable starting point for sentencing offences under s 323A of the Penal Code was the three-step sentencing framework set out in Ang Boon Han.

102 This involved (a) determining an indicative starting point; (b) adjusting the notional sentence based on the specific aggravating and mitigating factors present; and (c) factoring in any reductions where the offender had pleaded guilty.

103 The first step of the framework in Ang Boon Han involved determining an indicative starting point, having primary regard to the seriousness of the injury caused to the victim (Ang Boon Han at [50]).

104 Sundaresh Menon CJ held (at [50] to [51] of Ang Boon Han) that in arriving at the indicative starting point, the Court should have regard to the following:

(a) The nature and permanence of the injury, to be assessed by reference to a range of factors including:

(i) the number and seriousness of the injuries;

(ii) the location and extent of the pain suffered by the victim;

(iii) the permanence or duration of the injuries;

(iv) the extent of post-injury care that may be needed; and

(v) the degree of disruption experienced by the victim;

(b) The levels of sentencing applied in relevant analogous situations, particularly precedents under s 325 of the Penal Code (i.e. punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt, for which an offender may be imprisoned for up to 10 years, and be liable to a fine or to caning), while keeping in mind the difference in the sentencing ranges between the two offences (i.e. s 323A and s 325 of the Penal Code); and

(c) The full breadth of the permitted sentencing range (including fines) under s 323A of the Penal Code in arriving at the indicative starting point.

105 Menon CJ further held (at [52] of Ang Boon Han) that the sentencing court should then consider whether the indicative starting point should be adjusted either upwards or downwards to arrive at a notional sentence, having regard to the extent of asymmetry between the fault element (i.e. the offender’s intention to cause simple hurt, or knowledge that the offender is likely to cause such hurt) and the physical element (i.e. the grievous hurt that actually resulted) of the offence. In carrying out this assessment, the court may consider whether the grievous hurt actually caused was reasonably foreseeable having regard to the objective acts of the offender and the circumstances of the offence. In general, the greater the degree of asymmetry between the fault element and the physical element, the more this should result in an adjustment of the sentence in favour of the offender.

106 In the present matter, I indicated a starting point of 10 weeks’ imprisonment.

107 The Victim had suffered a mildly displaced fracture of the right radial neck and a scalp laceration, amongst other injuries, and was given 10 days of hospitalisation leave upon discharge. Nevertheless, I noted that there was no indication that the injuries had resulted in any prolonged functional limitation on the Victim, and the Prosecution confirmed that there was no evidence of the same ¹⁰⁴ .

108 I was also of the view that the indicative starting point of 10 weeks’ imprisonment was consistent with the case precedents of Arumugam Selvaraj v Public Prosecutor [2019] 5 SLR 881 (“Arumugam Selvaraj”) and Ang Boon Han.

109 In Arumugam Selvaraj, the offender was charged with voluntarily causing grievous hurt in furtherance of a common intention with a co-accused under s 325 read with s 34 of the Penal Code. The victim suffered a fracture of his right middle finger and bruising over his face and shoulder. The court considered that an appropriate starting point was six months’ imprisonment, having regard to the fracture and the extensive bruising. ¹⁰⁵

110 In Ang Boon Han, the victim suffered fractures of both the distal radius and scaphoid of his right wrist, and abrasions, which resulted in reduced function for at least three months. ¹⁰⁶ Manipulation and reduction of the victim’s right wrist fracture was performed under sedation, and the victim was discharged with 14 days of hospitalisation leave. ¹⁰⁷ The court in Ang Boon Han was of the view that the court in Arumugam Selvaraj was “primarily influenced by the single fracture and bruising in arriving at the indicative starting sentence of six months’ imprisonment” ¹⁰⁸ . Accordingly, the court in Ang Boon Han indicated that it would have arrived at an indicative starting point of between seven and eight months’ imprisonment at the first step had the charge been under s 325 of the Penal Code. ¹⁰⁹ However, as the charge was under s 323A of the Penal Code instead, the indicative starting point was three-and-a-half months’ imprisonment, or about 14 weeks’ imprisonment.

111 In the present case, I was of the view that the Victim’s injuries were broadly comparable to those in Arumugam Selvaraj (which involved a singular fracture to a finger and extensive bruising), but less serious than those in Ang Boon Han (which involved two fractures to the wrist and abrasions resulting in reduced function for at least three months). The victim in Ang Boon Han was discharged with 14 days of hospitalisation leave and had reduced function for at least 3 months, while the Victim in the present case was given 10 days of hospitalisation leave upon discharge and did not appear to have suffered any prolonged functional limitation.

112 With regard to the degree of asymmetry between the fault element and the physical element, I was of the view that the alignment between them in the present case was high and that no further adjustments should be made to the indicative starting point of 10 weeks’ imprisonment.

113 Given the Victim’s frailty, which the Accused himself recognised, it was reasonably foreseeable that in hitting the Victim’s head, a vulnerable part of the body, with considerable force using Exhibit P11, sufficient to make the Victim fall, or in hitting the Victim’s arm with Exhibit P11, the fall or the hit would cause the Victim to suffer such injuries as were in fact sustained.

114 I therefore made no adjustments to the indicative starting point of 10 weeks’ imprisonment.

115 At the second step of the framework in Ang Boon Han, the Court should consider whether any adjustments ought to be made to the notional sentence based on the specific aggravating and mitigating factors present on the facts (Ang Boon Han at [53]).

116 Relevant aggravating factors ¹¹⁰ include:

(a) Relevant antecedents or other prior interventions by the authorities;

(b) The extent of deliberation or premeditation;

(c) The manner and duration of the attack;

(d) The victim’s vulnerability;

(e) The use of any weapon; and

(f) Whether the attack was undertaken by a group.

117 As for relevant mitigating factors, these include the offender’s mental condition and any other factors that diminish his culpability or evidence his genuine remorse. ¹¹¹ The offender’s plea of guilt, if any, is not considered at this stage, but at the third and final step of the framework. ¹¹²

118 In Ang Boon Han, the Court applied an uplift of about 4 weeks’ imprisonment (to 18 weeks’ imprisonment) after considering that the victim, who was then 71 years old, was a vulnerable victim and that the assault was unprovoked. ¹¹³

119 In the present matter, I was of the view that there were more aggravating factors than in Ang Boon Han.

120 I considered the Victim’s vulnerability, including his dependence on his mobility aid for basic stability (as testified by Dr Siow ¹¹⁴ ), and his various other health issues, including his severe knee arthritis ¹¹⁵ . The Victim was also older than the 71-year-old victim in Ang Boon Han. Based on the Statement of Agreed Facts dated 19 May 2025 (“SOAF”), the Victim was 81 years old ¹¹⁶ as at the time of the SOAF. As the incident took place on 20 August 2023, the Victim was therefore approximately 79 years old at the time of the incident, which was still significantly older than the 71-year-old victim in Ang Boon Han.

121 I also considered the Accused’s use of Exhibit P11 as a weapon to hit the Victim’s head and arm. The Victim consistently testified, even during cross-examination, that the Accused kept beating him repeatedly as if he wanted to beat the Victim until he died. ¹¹⁷ Mdm Low also testified that she saw the Accused “repeatedly hitting” the Victim, with the Victim “bleeding everywhere”. ¹¹⁸

122  I agreed with the Prosecution that there were no mitigating factors in the present case.

123 In particular, there was clearly no evidence of the Accused’s genuine remorse. As the Prosecution rightly pointed out, the Accused had sought to downplay his actions at trial by claiming that he only gave a “a tap” ¹¹⁹ or “a knock” ¹²⁰ on the Victim’s head, even though by the Accused’s own account, the Victim staggered backwards “in a daze”, with his eyes “like staring into outer space”, ¹²¹ before falling backwards, and there was “a little bit of bleeding” from the Victim’s head. ¹²² Furthermore, even after the Victim fell, the Accused and Mdm Teo did not call an ambulance, dismissing the Victim’s injuries as a “slight wound only” and “only slight bleeding”. ¹²³ The Accused thereafter only called the police to inform them that he had acted in self-defence (and not for the purposes of rendering assistance to the Victim). ¹²⁴

124 Having regard to the aggravating factors and the absence of any mitigating factors, I applied an uplift of 6 weeks to the notional sentence of 10 weeks' imprisonment and arrived at a sentence of 16 weeks' imprisonment.

125 Given that the Accused had elected to claim trial, the third step of the framework in Ang Boon Han was not applicable and no sentencing reduction was warranted.

126 For completeness, I did not place any weight on the unreported case referred to by the Defence.

127 The unreported case concerned a charge for driving without due care and attention, causing grievous hurt, which is a distinct offence from that with which the Accused was charged in the present case.

128 Further, it is well established that unreported decisions are of limited precedential value, as such cases are often “bereft of crucial details concerning the facts and circumstances of the case” and “[t]he lack of detailed reasoning behind the sentences imposed also undermines the utility of such cases as relevant comparators” (Public Prosecutor v Lin Pengli Barrie and another appeal [2025] 4 SLR 524 (“Lin Pengli Barrie”) at [29] referring to Toh Suat Leng Jennifer v Public Prosecutor [2022] 5 SLR 1075 at [51]).

129 Even if the charge sheets, sentencing submissions, and statement of facts for the unreported cases may be available, they are nonetheless inherently deficient as precedents, as they offer no insight into the judge’s weighing of the facts and evidence, and the reasoning underlying the sentences imposed (Lin Pengli Barrie at [29]).

130 The position in the present matter was even weaker, as the Defence was relying solely on the prosecution's submissions as reported by a newspaper. For these reasons, I placed no weight on the unreported case referred to by the Defence.

131 For the foregoing reasons, I sentenced the Accused to 16 weeks’ imprisonment.

132 The Accused is currently on bail pending appeal.