Court sends strong message about protecting frontline staff from escalating threats
Singapore's Magistrate Court recently dealt with a case involving multiple charges against a 32-year-old man who engaged in abusive behaviour towards public service workers on separate occasions.
The incidents occurred at two different locations over a 13-month period. The accused faced three distinct charges: using insulting words towards a public service worker under the Protection from Harassment Act 2014, causing hurt by a rash act, and voluntarily causing hurt through assault.
His defence strategy varied across the charges, claiming he did not understand the meaning of certain language due to his ethnic background, arguing that his actions were accidental rather than deliberate, and asserting that he acted in self-defence when physically confronted.
The first incident took place at Bukit Batok Polyclinic in August 2022, where the accused accompanied his pregnant wife for medical services.
His wife was seeking assistance to add a ComCare letter to her records when tensions arose with a senior patient service associate. The prosecution's case relied on witness testimony from three individuals present during the confrontation.
The patient service associate testified that after a verbal altercation with the accused's wife, the accused approached her station and used a Hokkien vulgarity against her.
She explained that she could remember the exact word used because she was "scolded by [the accused] and she felt embarrassed as there were a lot of patients around at the time" and she "felt sad because there was nothing she could do." The court noted that the vulgarity was accompanied by words to the effect of "go outside, one to one," creating what the judge described as a veiled threat.
Two additional witnesses corroborated this account. A colleague testified that the vulgarity "was very clear and loud," whilst a member of the public confirmed he was certain it was a vulgarity because the accused was "already very angry and agitated."
The patient service associate testified that she felt "sad and humiliated and also afraid of going to work after the incident," demonstrating the lasting psychological impact on frontline workers facing such abuse.
The accused's defence that he would not have used the Hokkien term because he was Malay was rejected by the court.
During the same polyclinic incident, the accused threw a cup of soybean drink whilst leaving the premises. The projectile struck a member of the public who was using a self-help kiosk, causing bodily pain to his shoulder and requiring medical attention.
The prosecution argued that this conduct constituted criminal rashness under Singapore's Penal Code.
The judge explained that "advertence to risk will generally be an essential element of rashness, that is, the offender was actually advertent to the potential risks which might arise from his conduct but proceeded anyway despite such advertence."
Evidence showed that the accused used an overhand throwing method, supported by surveillance footage. During cross-examination, the accused conceded that "by throwing the cup of soyabean drink, he was aware that it could hit [the patient service associate] or it could hit the wall."
The court noted that the drink "narrowly missed another patron using the kiosk," highlighting the danger posed to multiple people in the healthcare facility, including both workers and patients.
Approximately one year earlier in July 2021, the accused was involved in a separate incident during a delivery to Commonwealth Capital.
A confrontation arose between the accused and a security officer at the guard post that escalated into physical violence, demonstrating the risks faced by security workers in their daily duties.
The accused claimed that the security officer called him "son of a bitch," which prompted him to slap the officer. However, the court found this did not constitute legal provocation. The judge noted that the accused stated that "he was not angry but when he heard [the security officer] say 'son of a bitch', his hand automatically went up." The physical confrontation escalated when the security officer retaliated with punches, leading the accused to deliver four punches to the officer's face in quick succession, followed by three kicks to his body.
Surveillance footage captured what the court described as a "vicious and ferocious" attack lasting approximately 30 seconds.
The court rejected the accused's self-defence claim, finding that after his first punch, the security officer "was seen staggering and losing his balance with his back turned away from [the accused], while [the accused] advanced and went after him to deliver three punches in quick succession."
The court's sentencing considerations were influenced by parliamentary statistics showing escalating abuse against frontline workers.
The judge highlighted that harassment cases against healthcare workers rose from 1,080 in 2018 to 1,300 in 2020, increasing to 99 reported cases in 2022. The court noted that "about seven in ten incidents of abuse or harassment witnessed or experienced by healthcare workers were from patients and their caregivers."
The accused's criminal history included previous convictions for similar offences against public service workers under the Protection from Harassment Act in 2016 and 2019, as well as multiple charges for voluntarily causing hurt to police officers.
The judge stated that "the prevalence of abuse and harassment against healthcare workers at the time of the offence in August 2022 attracts general deterrent sentencing for it."
The court convicted the accused on all three charges and imposed individual sentences totalling 16 weeks' imprisonment. The harassment charge received five days' imprisonment, whilst both the rash act and assault charges each received eight weeks' imprisonment, with two sentences running consecutively.
The judge emphasised that "deterrence is the dominant sentencing principle in this case, both general and specific." The court found that "the custodial threshold is crossed in this case" due to the seriousness of the offences and their impact on public service workers.
The final sentence reflected the court's recognition of the need to protect vulnerable public service workers, with the judge stating that "the aggregate sentence of 16 weeks' imprisonment is sufficient and proportionate" to address both the individual circumstances and the broader imperative to safeguard frontline workers from workplace harassment and violence.
