A woman who was caught by National Environmental Agency (NEA) officers for littering a cigarette butt on the sidewalk has just won a court case against the agency, for the trial concluded with the judge believing that the prosecution did not have enough evidence to prove she littered, resulting in her final acquittal.
Yes, you read it right: someone just won a case against NEA.
What Happened
The incident took place on 16 April 2022, at around 5:07pm. The defendant was working at a night market along Geylang Road at that time. She was accused of littering cigarette butts and taken to court. However, she pleaded not guilty, and a trial was initiated.
Lest you’re not aware, whenever we got “summons”, it’s actually a “chance” for us to settle the case out of court (i.e. attend trial) by paying the compound fine. Most of us just pay the compound fine, since a court case would take much longer and definitely, led to higher fines.
But not for this woman.
Apparently, from 4pm to 6pm on that day, two NEA officers were on duty, enforcing laws against actions like littering. One of them was wearing a body camera.
Accusation and Evidence
The two NEA officer stated that they saw the defendant smoking on the sidewalk outside the market. The officer wearing the body camera claimed he saw the defendant extinguish her cigarette, throw the butt on the sidewalk, and walk into the night market stall. However, the other officer did not witness this.
Both of them went into the night market, found the defendant at one of the stalls, and that was when the body camera was turned on when they approached her. They then showed their badges, explained the situation, and asked her for her ID. The defendant remained calm and cooperative during the questioning.
The defendant pointed out in court that she explained to them at the time that she was busy at the stall around 5pm and could not have gone outside the market to smoke during a busy period, especially when a customer was waiting for their food.
Furthermore, the body camera footage only showed the conversation between them and the defendant, which was incomplete and did not prove that she had littered cigarette butts (remember: it was turned on only after they approached the defendant).
The defendant’s two colleagues testified on her behalf in court, saying that it was not a break time and it was a peak period. The defendant was the only one responsible for packaging burgers, so it was unlikely that she could leave the stall without their knowledge.
The judge noted that although the NEA officers claimed that their standing position at the time allowed them to observe the defendant smoking without obstruction, the two gave inconsistent descriptions of the defendant’s standing position.
Moreover, there was no evidence to show how one of the NEA officers confirmed that the defendant was the one who littered the cigarette butts. The person smoking would inevitably have to take off the mask, but the footage from the body camera showed the defendant wearing a mask (in the night market).
Do note that this occurred last April, when the rules for compulsory masks while outdoors was just removed, so people were still used to wearing mask outdoors.
The NEA personnel only described the hand used by the person and the colour of the cigarette butt, but he could not provide any other details about the appearance of the person except for identifying the defendant.
Therefore, the judge concluded that there were inconsistencies in this case. The prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant had littered cigarette butts, and in the end, the defendant was acquitted.
