Mengapa Singapura salah kerana menuduh seorang penyokong atas dakwaan kesalahan 'menjerit' di stadium bolasepak semasa perlawanan berlangsung:
(Why Singapore is wrong to charge a football fan for allegedly 'shouting' at a football stadium during a football match):
Kamil
Case No: SC-903309-2014
UIN: G9060941L
Last court date: 9 June 2014
Next court date: 7 July 2014
Court location: Court no. 17
I act for myself, Kamil . I am charged with an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, Chapter 184, for behaving in a disorderly manner, to wit, by repeatedly shouting at the top of my voice, on the 20th day of May 2014 at or about 9.00pm, along Horne Road, which is a public place.
I write to seek an agreed resolution of this matter by having the charge withdrawn.
The case against me is essentially that I was alleged to have shouted at the top of my voice along Horne Road, which is a public place.
For present purposes, I presume in the prosecution's favour that a witness's testimony establishes a case against me. Even from that point, the evidence is incapable of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that I have committed the offence.
There are nine reasons for the above submission:
1. DPP , as witnessed by the learned judge and the translator, had expressly stated to me during PTC on the 9th June 2014 that "you did not shout at the top of your voice but you did shout at the police". The DPP's statement clearly contradicts the charge and therefore raises serious doubts to the prosecution's allegation.
2. I did not commit the alleged offence described as being "repeatedly shouting at the top of your voice". I need to emphasise again that I did not according to the charge read to me, shout at the top of my voice. Unlike other supporters of the visiting team, I came to the Jalan Besar Stadium by car with two of my friends and when I arrived at or about 8.50pm, I saw supporters of the home team started to come out of the stadium, indicating that the first half of the football match had just finished. When I was discussing with one of the FAS officers to allow myself and my friends to enter the stadium, I heard a commotion from where four supporters of the visiting team were arrested. I immediately went to see the arrests and as soon as I arrived at a spot where police line tape was installed, I was pounced from behind by two or three men, which I presume are police officers;
3. The description of the place of the alleged offence as being "along Horne Road, which is a public place", is not consistent with a video footage that I have in my possession. The video footage shows that the arrest was made at the Jalan Besar Stadium, and not at the shop lot buildings along Horne Road across from the Jalan Besar Stadium nor on Horne Road;
4. For the purpose of interpreting the offence, the English Football (Offences) Act 1991 do not include "repeatedly shouting at the top of one's voice" as an offence. The offence of 'indecent or racialist chanting', provided by Section 3 of the said Act, is essentially different from "shouting at the top of one's voice", in that there should be elements of insult to a person by reason of his ethnic:
3.—(1) It is an offence to take part at a designated football match in chanting of an indecent or racialist nature.
(2) For this purpose—
(a) "chanting" means the repeated uttering of any words or sounds in concert with one or more others; and
(b) "of a racialist nature" means consisting of or including matter which is threatening, abusive or insulting to a person by reason of his colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.
5. I presume the prosecution had intentionally and clearly omitted in the charge, the name of the place of arrest, which is Jalan Besar Stadium, and instead stated the place 'along Horne Road' because the prosecution is aware that the Jalan Besar Stadium is a place where sporting event is held, and the prosecution is aware that it is the nature of such place where sporting event is held where even public shouting, much less public chanting of a sport team's slogan and song, is not considered as disorderly;
6. The Section 20 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, Chapter 184 has expressly stated four places (any public road, any public place, place of public amusement, resort) where the offence is committed. However a notable omission is that the place of sporting event is not expressly mentioned. This glaring omission points to the nature of place where sporting event is held where even shouting is not considered as disorderly;
7. For the purpose of interpretation of the place where the offence is committed, Section 1(2)(a) of the English Football (Offences) Act 1991 described "a designated football match include anything done at the ground within the period beginning two hours before the start of the match and ending one hour after the end of the match":
1.—(2) References in this Act to things done at a designated football match include anything done at the ground—
(a) within the period beginning two hours before the start of the match or (if earlier) two hours before the time at which it is advertised to start and ending one hour after the end of the match; or
(b) where the match is advertised to start at a particular time on a particular day but does not take place on that day, within the period beginning two hours before and ending one hour after the advertised starting time.
If "repeatedly shouting at the top of one's voice" during a football match, which means "at the ground within the period beginning two hours before the start of the match and ending one hour after the end of the match" is considered unlawful, this will result in an absurd situation where supporters are expected to be quiet for a minimum of four hours and forty five minutes when going to the ground (stadium) to attend a football match. Such absurd legal conclusion should be avoided in light of the coming ASEAN Football Federation Cup tournament, which Singapore will be hosting in six months' time;8. The prosecution argued that the alleged disorderly behaviour went on for about half an hour, indicating a "high level of disobedience" to police instructions to stand down and disperse. This is not true since I had only arrived at the stadium at or about 8.50pm when the supporters of the home team started to come out of the stadium, indicating the half time interval;
9. I presume the prosecution is aware that the security forces had caused severe frustration to supporters of the visiting team who have travelled to the Jalan Besar Stadium from another country, by refusing admission even when the supporters held valid match tickets and there was a convenient interval in the match. Unlike match tickets issued in previous football match held at the same stadium, nowhere was printed on the match tickets that admission is strictly for a supporter of the host team and not supporter of the visiting team. Even when the statement 'FAS TERMS & CONDITIONS APPLY' was printed on the match tickets, FAS as the promoter and TicketBooth as the agent on behalf of the promoter should give sufficient notice to the ticket buyer by drawing the attention of the buyer to the terms & conditions. This is consistent with the principle established by Lord Denning MR in the case of Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163:
"All I say is that it is so wide and so destructive of rights that the court should not hold any man bound by it unless it is drawn to his attention in the most explicit way."
All of these considerations point towards withdrawal of the charge being appropriate. Posted in:
