Singaporean jailed in Australia for driving over man who stole backpack, killing him

The judge said the decision to confront the man and knock him off his bicycle involved "a degree of vigilantism".

File photo of a gavel. (Photo: CNA/Jeremy Long)

This audio is generated by an AI tool.

SINGAPORE: A 29-year-old Singaporean man was sentenced to five years and nine months' jail in Australia on Monday (Nov 2) after he killed a man who stole a backpack from his rental car.

Lincoln Ng Jing Kai chased the man in a car and knocked him off his e-bike, before driving over him.

He was originally charged with murder, but pleaded guilty to manslaughter in August after prosecutors agreed to accept the lesser charge.

Sentencing him, Judge Terence Palmer said Ng's actions " involved an element of taking the law into your own hands and a degree of vigilantism", even if he did not intend to seriously injure him and he was expecting the police to arrive.

The Supreme Court of Western Australia heard that Ng was on an eight-day holiday in Perth with his girlfriend and her family and had planned to propose to her. They rented a car to use during their holiday.

On May 23, 2024, the group drove to East Victoria Park for dinner and parked the car nearby. The backpack was left in the boot of the car, and contained a passport, iPad, some cash and an AirTag tracker.

The man, Mr Mark John Burnes, had seen the family and Ng leave the backpack in the car and decided to break into the car to steal it. He had called his partner to tell her of his intentions.

After smashing the back window of the car, Mr Burnes left with the stolen backpack and returned to the room he shared with his partner. They discovered the AirTag, which she attempted to dispose of by throwing it into the tray of a vehicle parked outside.

When Ng and his girlfriend's family returned to the car, they found that it had been broken into and they reported it to the police.

Later that evening, Ng's girlfriend's brother activated the AirTag to track it and noticed its location moving. He contacted police and was advised to call back once the location had stabilised.

The following day, Ng and his girlfriend's family reported the theft and replaced their damaged car with the rental company.

At about 8am, they activated the AirTag again and saw it near a construction site. They called the police with the location.

The construction site was a short distance away from where Mr Burnes and his partner were staying.

Sometime after 12.30pm, the group decided to drive past the location where the AirTag was. About an hour later, Ng's girlfriend's brother called the police.

While the group was at the construction site looking for the AirTag, Mr Burnes rode past on an e-bike carrying what appeared to be the stolen backpack.

Ng's girlfriend's brother and his father saw Mr Burnes cycle past and got into the car. The older man told Ng to follow Mr Burnes so they would not lose sight of him.

Ng pursued Mr Burnes for about 10 minutes around the streets of Carlisle, Perth. His girlfriend's brother remained on the phone with the police, updating them on their location.

As Mr Burnes left the road onto a grass verge, someone from the back of the car told Ng to give the bike "a tap", the court heard.

Ng hit the rear wheel of Mr Burnes' e-bike, causing him to fall. He made a U-turn to face Mr Burnes and had to reverse a little to avoid an obstacle.

Mr Burnes yelled threats at the group, and Ng was scared he might attack. He thought Mr Burnes was coming towards the car and he wanted to reverse away from him.

Ng stepped down hard on the accelerator, thinking that the car transmission was in reverse, but it was in drive.

The car moved forward and struck the man, who fell to the ground and went under the car. Ng then drove off the verge and onto the street, while the man was trapped under the front driver's wheel.

Ng continued to drive about 25m up the street, dragging the man under the car.

The prosecution said it should have been evident to Ng that Mr Burnes was trapped under the car, but Ng argued that he did not know that was the case. The judge accepted that there was a risk he might have been under the car, but was not persuaded that the risk was obvious to Ng.

Bystanders ran up to the car and attempted to stop Ng by yelling or banging on the window.

Ng reversed the car and Mr Burnes was released from underneath it. Ng then waited by the side of the road for the police to arrive.

Mr Burnes was declared dead in hospital at 2.42pm after sustaining multiple injuries. Ng was arrested at the scene.

He admitted to police that night that he had pursued Mr Burnes and hit him so he would fall off his bike. Ng said it was a very light tap to cause him to fall to buy time for the police to arrive, after which Mr Burnes shouted aggressively at him.

MITIGATION, AGGRAVATING FACTORS

The judge said he accepted that Ng thought Mr Burnes posed an imminent threat to the car and its occupants, and that the decision was a "split second decision made under pressure".

However, he said if Mr Burnes posed a threat to those in the car, it was because Ng was using a car to chase and confront him.

Justice Palmer also noted that Mr Burnes was in a vulnerable position, as he was on an e-bike while Ng was in a car.

He said Ng should have stopped immediately after realising that the vehicle was moving forward instead of reversing.

CNA Games Guess Word Crack the word, one row at a time Buzzword Create words using the given letters Mini Sudoku Tiny puzzle, mighty brain teaser Mini Crossword Small grid, big challenge Word Search Spot as many words as you can Show More Show Less " Your counsel suggested that you have not appreciated what you were doing because you were addled. While I accept that you may have panicked at the time, I am not satisfied that you were so addled to not appreciate the obvious risk associated with driving towards Mr Burnes," said the judge. In mitigation, the judge considered Ng's guilty plea, lack of prior criminal history and genuine remorse. Justice Palmer accepted that Ng's actions were out of character and that he had excellent prospects of rehabilitation. The judge also considered the influence of Ng's prospective father-in-law, who had directed him to pursue Mr Burnes, although he stressed that Ng was ultimately responsible for controlling the vehicle. Ng's jail sentence was backdated to when he was first taken into custody on May 24, 2024, and he will be eligible for parole after three years and nine months' imprisonment.

" Your counsel suggested that you have not appreciated what you were doing because you were addled. While I accept that you may have panicked at the time, I am not satisfied that you were so addled to not appreciate the obvious risk associated with driving towards Mr Burnes," said the judge.

In mitigation, the judge considered Ng's guilty plea, lack of prior criminal history and genuine remorse.

Justice Palmer accepted that Ng's actions were out of character and that he had excellent prospects of rehabilitation.

The judge also considered the influence of Ng's prospective father-in-law, who had directed him to pursue Mr Burnes, although he stressed that Ng was ultimately responsible for controlling the vehicle.

Ng's jail sentence was backdated to when he was first taken into custody on May 24, 2024, and he will be eligible for parole after three years and nine months' imprisonment.

Get our pick of top stories and thought-provoking articles in your inbox

Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories

Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app

法官表示，与该男子对峙并将其从自行车上打下来的决定涉及“一定程度的私刑”。

法槌的资料照片。（图片：CNA/Jeremy Long）

这段音频由人工智能工具生成。

新加坡：一名29岁的新加坡男子周一（11月2日）在澳大利亚被判处五年零九个月监禁，此前他杀害了一名从他租来的车里偷走背包的男子。

林肯·吴景凯驾车追赶该男子，将其从电动自行车上撞倒，然后开车从他身上碾过。

他最初被控谋杀，但在检察官同意接受较轻的指控后，于 8 月份承认过失杀人罪。

法官特伦斯·帕尔默在宣判时表示，吴的行为“包含以暴制暴和一定程度的私刑”，即使他并非有意严重伤害对方，而且他当时也预料到警察会赶到。

西澳大利亚州最高法院获悉，吴某与女友及其家人在珀斯度假八天，并计划向女友求婚。他们租了一辆车用于度假期间出行。

2024年5月23日，一行人驾车前往东维多利亚公园用餐，并将车停在附近。背包留在汽车后备箱内，里面装有护照、iPad、一些现金和一个AirTag追踪器。

男子马克·约翰·伯恩斯先生看到这家人和吴女士把背包留在车里，便决定砸车偷走背包。他事先打电话告诉了他的伴侣自己的意图。

伯恩斯先生砸碎汽车后窗后，带着偷来的背包离开，回到了他和伴侣合住的房间。他们发现了AirTag，她的伴侣试图把它扔进停在外面的一辆车的后备箱里丢弃。

当吴和女友一家回到车旁时，发现车子被撬了，于是他们向警方报案。

当晚晚些时候，吴女士女友的哥哥启动了AirTag追踪器，发现其位置发生了变化。他联系了警方，警方建议他待位置稳定后再打电话。

第二天，吴先生和女友的家人报案称车辆被盗，并向租车公司更换了受损的车辆。

早上8点左右，他们再次激活了AirTag，发现它位于一个建筑工地附近。他们随即报警，并告知了警方位置。

施工现场距离伯恩斯先生和他的伴侣居住的地方很近。

下午12点30分过后不久，这群人决定开车经过AirTag所在的位置。大约一个小时后，吴女士女友的哥哥报警。

当这群人在建筑工地寻找 AirTag 时，伯恩斯先生骑着电动自行车经过，背着一个看起来像是被盗的背包。

吴女士女友的哥哥和他的父亲看到伯恩斯先生骑车经过，便上了车。年长的父亲让吴女士跟着伯恩斯先生，以免跟丢他。

吴某在珀斯卡莱尔的街道上追逐伯恩斯先生约10分钟。伯恩斯先生女友的哥哥一直与警方保持电话联系，随时更新他们的位置。

据法庭获悉，当伯恩斯先生离开公路来到路边的草地上时，车后座有人告诉吴某轻轻“拍一下”自行车。

吴先生撞到了伯恩斯先生电动自行车的后轮，导致伯恩斯先生摔倒。他掉头迎面撞上伯恩斯先生，然后为了避开障碍物，不得不稍微倒车。

伯恩斯先生对着他们大声威胁，吴先生害怕他会攻击自己。他以为伯恩斯先生正朝车走过来，所以想倒车躲开。

吴猛地踩下油门，以为汽车变速箱处于倒挡，但实际上却处于前进挡。

汽车向前行驶，撞倒了那名男子，男子倒地后被卷入车底。随后，吴某驾车冲出路肩，驶入街道，而那名男子则被困在驾驶座前方的车轮下。

吴先生继续驾车沿街行驶约 25 米，将该男子拖在车下。

控方认为，吴某理应意识到伯恩斯先生被困在车下，但吴某辩称他对此并不知情。法官承认伯恩斯先生可能被困在车下，但并不认为吴某意识到了这一风险。

旁观者跑到车旁，试图通过大声喊叫或敲打车窗来阻止吴。

吴先生倒车后，伯恩斯先生被从车底救了出来。随后，吴先生在路边等待警察到来。

伯恩斯先生因身受多处伤，于下午2点42分在医院被宣告死亡。吴某在现场被捕。

当晚，他向警方承认自己追赶伯恩斯先生并击打他，导致他从自行车上摔下来。吴先生说，他只是轻轻地碰了一下伯恩斯先生，让他摔倒是为了给警察争取时间，之后伯恩斯先生对他进行了激烈的叫喊。

缓解因素、加重因素

法官表示，他接受吴先生认为伯恩斯先生对汽车及其乘员构成迫在眉睫的威胁，并且该决定是“在压力下做出的瞬间决定”。

然而，他表示，如果伯恩斯先生对车内人员构成威胁，那是因为吴先生开车追赶并与他对峙。

帕尔默法官还指出，伯恩斯先生处于弱势地位，因为他骑着电动自行车，而吴先生则坐在汽车里。

他说，吴某在意识到车辆正在向前行驶而不是向后倒车后，应该立即停车。

CNA游戏 猜词游戏 逐行破解单词 流行词游戏 用给定的字母组成单词 迷你数独 小谜题，脑力挑战 迷你填字游戏 小方格，大挑战 单词搜索 尽可能多地找出单词 显示更多 显示更少 “你的辩护律师认为你当时神志不清，所以没有意识到自己在做什么。虽然我接受你当时可能惊慌失措，但我并不认为你神志不清到没有意识到开车冲向伯恩斯先生所带来的明显风险，”法官说道。在量刑方面，法官考虑了吴的认罪、无犯罪前科以及真诚的悔意。帕尔默法官认为吴的行为与其性格不符，并且他有很好的改过自新的可能性。法官还考虑了吴的准岳父的影响，准岳父指示他追赶伯恩斯先生，但他强调吴最终要对车辆的控制负责。吴的刑期从他首次被拘留的日期（2024 年 5 月 24 日）开始计算，他将在服刑三年零九个月后有资格获得假释。

“你的辩护律师认为你当时神志不清，所以没有意识到自己在做什么。虽然我承认你当时可能惊慌失措，但我并不认为你神志不清到无法意识到开车冲向伯恩斯先生所带来的明显风险，”法官说道。

法官在量刑时考虑了吴某的认罪态度、无犯罪前科以及真诚的悔意。

帕尔默法官认为吴的行为与其性格不符，并且他有很好的改过自新的机会。

法官还考虑了吴某未来岳父的影响，他指示吴某追求伯恩斯先生，尽管法官强调吴某最终要对车辆的控制负责。

吴的刑期从他首次被拘留的日期（2024 年 5 月 24 日）开始计算，他将在服刑三年零九个月后有资格获得假释。

订阅我们的邮件，即可获取精选热点新闻和引人深思的文章。

订阅通知，第一时间获取突发新闻和精彩报道。

加入我们的频道，即可在您常用的聊天应用上获取当日热门文章。