Chan Fun Fook v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Wong Keen Onn
• Judgment Date: 29 February 2008
• Neutral Citation: [2008] SGDC 49
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2008
• Published date: 03 April 2008
• Plaintiff Counsel: APP Christine Liu
• Defendant Counsel: Tan Gee Tuan (Gee Tuan Tan)
• Citation: [2008] SGDC 49

29 February 2008

District Judge Wong Keen Onn:

Background

The accused, Chan Fun Fook, pleaded guilty to and was convicted of the following charge.

“DAC 22071/07 (Exhibit P1)

You, Chan Fun Fook, male 59 years old NRIC NO: S0044044B are charged that you, on the 11^th day of February 2007 at about 8.35 a.m., along Ang Mo Kio Street 31 junction Ang Mo Kio Avenue 8, Singapore, did cause the death of a pedestrian namely one Lee Lai Kim, female 76 years old, by doing a negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide while driving the motor taxi SHA 4326J, to wit, by failing to give way to the deceased who was crossing from the left to the right in your perspective on a signalized pedestrian crossing of Ang Mo Kio Avenue 8 on a green man signal light when you were making a right turn from Ang Mo Kio Street 31 into Ang Mo Kio Avenue 8 upon a green light signal and thus collided onto her, therefore causing the death of the pedestrian, Lee Lai Kim and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 304A of the Penal Code, Chapter 224”.

2 The accused was sentenced to one week imprisonment and disqualified from holding or obtaining all classes of driving licence for 3 years. The accused has appealed against this sentence. I now give the reasons for the sentence imposed.

The Facts

3 The accused, Chan Fun Fook, was a taxi-driver. The deceased is Lee Lai Kim, female, 79 years of age. She was a retiree.

4 On 11 February 2007, at about 8.35 a.m., the accused was driving his motor taxi SHA 4326J, with the three passengers, along the right lane of Ang Mo Kio Street 31 towards Ang Mo Kio Avenue 8. The three passengers in the accused’s taxi were Mr Marcel Verbeek, a Dutch national, his girlfriend Ms Raihani Binte Mahat (“Raihani”) and Raihani’s sister, Ms Maisurah Binte Mahat. Upon reaching the signalized T-junction of Ang Mo Kio Avenue 8, the accused stopped his vehicle as the traffic light was red.

5 After the traffic light changed from red to green, the accused proceeded to make a right turn from Ang Mo Kio Street 31 into Ang Mo Kio Avenue 8. As the accused was making the said right turn, the accused did a negligent act by failing to give way to a 76 year old pedestrian, Lee Lai Kim (the deceased), who was crossing from her left to right on a signalized pedestrian crossing of Ang Mo Kio Avenue 8. At that time, the traffic light displayed a green man signal in favour of the pedestrian. The front portion of the accused’s motor taxi SHA 4326J collided onto the deceased, causing the deceased to land on the taxi’s front bonnet, before collapsing and landing in front of the taxi. After the collision, the accused immediately stopped his vehicle.

6 As a result of the accident, the deceased sustained hematoma over the occiput, fracture of the left leg and bleeding from the mouth and nose. She suffered severe head injury and left tibia/fibula fracture and she succumbed to her injuries later the same morning. The cause of death was head injury and the injuries sustained were consistent with those sustained from a road traffic accident.

7 At the material time, the weather was fine, the road surface was dry, the traffic flow was moderate and the visibility was clear. There were no complaints of traffic lights malfunction at the above-mention junction on the said date and time. There was no inherent defect detected in the motor vehicle SHA 4326J. The impact had left a dent on the right side of the front bonnet and front right headlight was also dented (Exhibit “D” and “E”.) From the sketch plan (Exhibit “C”) tendered by the Prosecution, the motor vehicle SHA 4326J had travelled past the pedestrian crossing by a distance of about 8.3 metres (measured from the front of the vehicle) before it stopped. The deceased’s body was found lying about 11 metres away from the pedestrian crossing while her umbrella was lying about one metre from the pedestrian crossing.

Mitigation

8 The accused is 59 years of age and is married with two children. He had held a Class 3 driving licence since 1967. He became a taxi driver about 10 years ago after he lost his previous job as a supervisor when the company folded its business. Counsel urged the Court not to impose a custodial sentence on the accused for the following reasons:

(a) accused is a first offender and is remorseful and he had pleaded guilty at the first opportunity;

(b) he was not speeding at the time of the accident and had tried to render assistance to the deceased after the collision. He has stopped operating his taxi after the incident; and

(c) he suffers from hypertension and his condition became worse after the incident.

Prosecution’s position

9 The Prosecution did not address the Court on sentence except to point out that the deceased was most likely crossing the road relatively slowly at the material time and the deceased had undergone a knee replacement before (a 14 centimetre old scar across the anterior aspect of left knee stated at page 1 of the Autopsy Report at Exhibit “I”.) It was said that the umbrella found at the scene belongs to the deceased, suggesting that the deceased was walking with the aid of the umbrella.

Sentencing Considerations

10 Under Section 304A of the Penal Code, a person who cause the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both. This offence draws a distinction between a negligent act and rash act. An offence resulting in death is always serious, necessitating a severe sentence as it invariably involves the loss of an innocent life. On the other hand, the traffic offender (driver) does not set out deliberately to cause harm to another person. But that does not mean he is not responsible for his actions or the consequences of his act of driving. The punishment must depend on the degree of the offender’s culpability.

11 In the instant case, the accused has been convicted of a charge of causing death by an...