Re: Indeed Kangaroo Court
http://lwb.lawnet.com.sg/legal/lgl/rss/subcourts/11530.html
1. The complainant is Corporal Lim Hong Lee attached to the Traffic Police Department.
2. The defendant is Tan Tee Wee, male 30 yrs.
3. On 16.03.2010 at about 11.30 am, along BKE, the complainant stopped motor lorry GQ3483Y driven by the defendant. Upon checking, complainant discovered that the defendant was driving whilst under disqualification. The defendant was placed under arrest and a report was lodged accordingly.
4. The Licensing Officer of Traffic Police confirmed that the defendant was disqualified by the Subordinate Courts from holding or obtaining a driving licence for all classes of vehicles for a period of 2 years from 01.10.2009 to 30.09.2011.
5. As the defendant is under disqualification, there was no insurance policy or security in respect of Third-Party Risks insurance coverage as complies with the requirements of the Motor Vehicle (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act, Chapter 189.
6. Defendant has committed the following offences:
a. Driving whilst under disqualification under Section 43(4)RTA Cap 276
b. Using a vehicle without insurance coverage under Section 3(1) MVA Cap 189
Antecedents
3 On 1 October 2009 in Court 21, the Accused was convicted for the following offences namely:
i) drink driving under Section 67(1)(b) Road Traffic Act (Cap 276)(“first charge”),
ii) dangerous driving under Section 65(a) Road Traffic Act (Cap 276)(“second charge”)
He was fined $3,000 and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for a period of 2 years for all classes of vehicles for the first charge and fined $700 for the second charge.
Mitigation
4 In his mitigation, the Accused urged the Court to impose a light sentence. As he is a businessman, if the Court imposes a long jail sentence, he would not be able to manage his business. He also pleaded for leniency.
The Sentence
5 After a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I was of the view that there were no exceptional facts before me that would justify a departure from the usual sentencing tariff of a custodial sentence and as such in exercise of my discretion, I sentenced the Accused as follows:
i) first charge - 8 weeks’ imprisonment and a disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving licence for all classes for a period of three years;
ii) second charge - fine of $500 in default 3 days’ imprisonment and a disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving licence for all classes for a period of 12 months’ from the date of conviction.
The total sentence imposed was 8 weeks’ imprisonment and a fine of $500 in default 3 days’ imprisonment and a total disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving licence for all classes for a period of three years as the two disqualification orders ran concurrently.
6 Dissatisfied with sentence imposed by me, the Accused lodged a Notice of Appeal on the same day. The Accused is currently serving his sentence in respect of the first charge and has paid the court fine for the second charge.
7 I now provide the reasons for my decision.
Sentencing Considerations
Section 43(4) Road Traffic Act - the first charge
The Penalty
8 The offence of driving whist under disqualification is punishable with a fine of not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years’ or to both. The Court has a complete and unfettered discretion to impose a fine or term of imprisonment term or a sentence of both a fine and imprisonment depending on the whether it is an exceptional case or where no special facts or circumstances exist for the case before it.
9 In its consideration of the appropriate sentence to be imposed for a charge of driving whilst under disqualification, the Court has to take into account all the surrounding circumstances of the particular case, the existence of similar or related antecedents, the risk of the Accused causing injury to people or damage to property on the road such as whether there was poor control of the vehicle, whether it was a recent disqualification, whether the Accused was driving under the influence of alcohol or other relevant factors, to see what kind of sentence is appropriate for the situation. Nevertheless, due to the serious nature of this offence, the usual tariff for a charge under Section 43(4) is a custodial sentence and an order of disqualification for all classes of vehicles.
Sentencing Precedents
10 This position has been clearly established in the case of Chng Wei Meng v Public Prosecutor [2002] 4 SLR 595, where the Honourable the Chief Justice Yong Pung How (as he then was) stated [at 42-43] as follows:
42 In Samnasivam s/o Sharma v PP [1992] 2 SLR 580, I held that unless special circumstances of the case can be shown, magistrates should not hesitate to impose a substantial sentence of imprisonment. That statement of mine should now be reconsidered in the light of legislative amendments to s 43(4) in April 1993. On 25 April 1993, Parliament amended the provision by removing the words ‘special circumstances’ hence eliminating the fetter on the court’s discretion to impose a custodial sentence. The current position in the amended s 43(4) is that an offender shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both. The courts now clearly have an absolute discretion in every situation to determine the types and extent of the various sentencing options, subject to the limits of punishment as prescribed by the legislature.
43 I was firmly of the view that the courts have an interest and a duty to the people of Singapore to ensure strict compliance with our safety regulations and promote the safety and security of our roads and highways. Driving while under disqualification is about as serious an offence as a motorist can commit. Not only does it compromise the safety of our roads; it also creates problems in ensuring adequate compensation for luckless victims. Prima facie, motorists who drive while disqualified must now expect a term of imprisonment and not merely a fine. In addition, the irresponsible motorist who has knowledge of an order of disqualification made against him but who continues to drive in blatant disregard of the law and the authority of the courts can also expect to face the full impact of the law upon him and receive enhanced custodial sentences.
In Chng’s case, the High Court had affirmed the trial judge’s sentence of one month imprisonment in respect of the offence of driving while under disqualification pursuant to Section 42A Road Traffic Act, an order usually applied for by the Prosecution and ordered by the Court when an Accused person facing driving-related offences after having previously absent from his first Court date and consequently warned of the consequences of failing to attend Court, absents himself once again on a subsequent court date. It must be highlighted that such a sentence is only a starting point and for the more serious offence of driving while under disqualification after a Court conviction, an accused person should expect a longer custodial sentence especially where there are aggravating facts.
11 This position was once again affirmed by the Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong in Public Prosecutor v Lee Cheow Loong Charles [2008] 4 SLR 961 [at 29] where he cited with approval the description of such an offence in Chng’s case [at 43] as being:
“…is about as serious an offence as a motorist can commit…[T]he irresponsible motorist who has knowledge of an order of disqualification made against him but who continues to drive in blatant disregard of the law and the authority of the courts can also expect to face the full impact of the law upon him and receive enhanced custodial sentences.”
He also stated:
“31 It is clear that driving whilst under disqualification is a serious offence which is to be punished strictly because of the danger posed to the public and the offender’s complete disregard for the earlier disqualification order imposed by the court.
32 …General and, especially, specific deterrence are important considerations in offences such as the present one, which are very difficult to detect.”
In Lee’s case, on an appeal by the Prosecution, the Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong enhanced the original sentence of two months’ imprisonment and disqualification from obtaining holding a driving licence for all classes of motor vehicles for 3 years after release from prison for an offence under Section 43(4) Road Traffic Act to a sentence of twenty four months’ imprisonment but did not disturb the disqualification order.
12 In PP v Rennie Seow Chen Hua [2007] SGDC 131, the accused had been stopped for driving at 96 km/h in excess of the speed limit of 60 km/h along Bishan Road. On screening him, it was discovered that his driving licence had been disqualified for a period of 18 months. He pleaded guilty to three charges, namely a charge of driving whilst under disqualification, a charge of using a vehicle without the necessary insurance coverage in respect of third party risks and a speeding charge. He was sentenced to six week’s imprisonment and a disqualification for three years for all classes of vehicles from his release for the charge of driving whilst under disqualification, a fine of $500 in default three days imprisonment and a disqualification of 12 months for all classes of vehicle for the charge of using a vehicle without the requisite insurance charge and a fine of $1000 in default five days’ imprisonment and a disqualification for four months’ for all classes for the speeding charge. He filed an appeal against the sentence of six weeks’ imprisonment and 3 years’ disqualification for all classes of vehicles upon his release for the driving whilst under disqualification charge. On the date of the hearing of his appeal, the accused applied for leave to withdraw his appeal and Lee Seiu Kin J granted leave for him to withdraw his appeal.
13 In PP v Ng Peng Han [2009] SGDC 307 the accused was stopped by a police officer who had observed him using a mobile phone whilst driving. Upon screening, it was discovered that he was driving whilst under disqualification. Accused had 4 previous convictions for driving whilst under disqualification and was last sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment and disqualification for life all classes. He pleaded guilty to a charge of driving a motor vehicle whilst under disqualification and a charge of using a mobile telephone while driving. Two other charges of taking and using a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent and a charge of using a motor vehicle without an insurance policy or security in respect of third-party risk were taken into consideration. He was sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment and a disqualification for all classes for life for driving whilst under disqualification as Section 67A(1) Road Traffic Act invoked and fine of $800 in default 4 days’ imprisonment and disqualified for all classes for life for using mobile telephone whilst driving. On appeal by the Accused, Choo Han Teck J dismissed the appeal.
14 In PP v Tan Chen Chey [2009] SGDC 485 the accused had alcoholic breath when he was stopped by a police officer for checks and he failed the breathalyser test. His level of alcohol was 46 microgrammes alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. It was discovered that he was driving whilst under disqualification and as such there was no insurance policy or security in respect of third party risks. Accused had a previous conviction for drink driving and was fined $2500 and disqualified for 18 months for all classes. He was sentenced to 3 weeks’ imprisonment, $5,000 in default 10 days and a four years’ disqualification for all classes’ from release for drink driving, 8 weeks’ imprisonment and a three years’ disqualification for all classes for the driving whilst under disqualification and $500 in default 3 days imprisonment and disqualified for 12 months’ all classes from the date of conviction for using the vehicle without the requisite insurance coverage. Imprisonment terms were to run concurrently. On appeal by the Accused, V K Rajah JA dismissed the appeal.
15 In PP v Choo Puay Lan [2010] SGDC 64, the Accused had driven her motor van to deliver periodicals when she was stopped by the police. Her delivery helper had refused to turn up for work to make the deliveries. Licensing Officer from Traffic Police confirmed that she was driving whilst under disqualification and as such did not have insurance policy or security for third-party risk. The Accused had previous conviction of using a mobile telephone while driving and was fined $800 and a disqualification for 6 months’ all classes. She was sentenced to 6 weeks’ imprisonment and disqualified for 3 years all classes for the driving whilst under disqualification and $500 in default 3 days imprisonment and disqualified for 12 months’ all classes from the date of conviction for using the vehicle without the requisite insurance coverage. On appeal by the Accused, leave was granted by VK Rajah JA for her to withdraw appeal.
