if it is taken very seriously then why were the charges withdrew
in the end?
Oxfordmushroom,
If MHA is consistent in earlier cases of assault he will have no
problem in charging the tycoon's wife in this case. Now to compound
the inconsistency in earlier cases of assault, not charging the
tycoon's wife can be regarded as favoring the powerful and the
rich. So there is a flip-flop here on the part of MHA due to
earlier lack of thought in refusing to charge certain violent
assailant for criminal assault.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
The reason why the charges were dropped and why they were
initiated in the first place is the same: it is because of the
stewardess.
As you all know [though plenty do not understand], the case was
classified as that of voluntarily causing hurt [VCH], a
non-seizable offence. In most cases of VCH, the victim will be
advised to lodge a magistrate's complaint in order to furnish the
Police with full powers of investigation, as Police have limited
investigative powers for non-seizable offences. Only in
exceptional cases will the Police apply to have full investigative
powers via their respective Head of Investigation.
This might lead to the "inconsistency" that you see, but you
must understand that it is actually at the discretion of the
Magistrate, whether or not to direct the report to the Police to
investigate. The Police will have their own review on which VCH
cases need to be investigated proactively [without concurrence from
the Magistrate] and will update the victim accordingly if
that is the case. So it depends on two areas: either the
Magistrate's direction, or the Police's own initiation [for those
exceptional cases].
Unlike typical Police investigations [where people get arrested
and/or charged in court], in Magistrate's Complaints, the Victim is
able to tell the Police when to cease investigations, seeing as to
they were the ones who requested the Police to look into the matter
[via a written order by the Magistrate] in the first place. This
was what happened in this case.
It is not about inconsistency in the law. It is all about
understanding it, and, as in the case of courtroom battles, making
use of the laws and loopholes and putting those understandings to a
debate. The one who argues his case best usually ends up the
winner.