Goh Eng Lee v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 27 February 1999
• Date: 27 February 1999
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 180 of 1998
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Goh Eng Lee

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[1999] SGHC 329

Yong Pung How CJ

Magistrate's Appeal No 180 of 1998

High Court

Evidence–Witnesses–Circumstances under which appellate court might disturb trial judge's findings–Road Traffic–Offences–Driving while disqualified–No third-party insurance–Whether police officers mistaking accused as driver–Whether credible that friend agreed to being unpaid chauffeur during one-year disqualification period–Effect of failure to arrest accused on Prosecution's case–Section 43 (4) Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 1997 Rev Ed)–Section 3 Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 1985 Rev Ed)

The appellant was convicted of the offences of driving a car whilst being disqualified from holding or obtaining all classes of driving licence, and of driving a car without the requisite policy of insurance against third-party risk. The trial judge accepted the evidence of three police officers who claimed to have seen the appellant stopping his car a short distance from a police roadblock and the appellant switching his driver's seat with a passenger in the car at the material time. The appellant appealed, arguing that (a) there was a mistake of identity between him and Ang, his friend who was then driving the car, and (b) Ang had stopped the car some distance before the roadblock to answer nature's call and not to switch seats as the Prosecution alleged.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The circumstances under which an appellate court might disturb the trial judge's findings were limited. It would only do so when the trial judge had not taken proper advantage of his having seen and heard the witnesses. In this case, the trial judge had seen and heard the witnesses and noted that they gave clear and consistent evidence on the material issue of the seat-switching between the appellant and Ang: at [13].

(2) The evidence of the appellant and Ang were unbelievable: (a) that Ang would act as the appellant's unpaid chauffeur during the latter's one-year period of disqualification from driving; (b) there were several inconsistencies in their evidence; and (c) it just seemed too much of a coincidence that Ang would have stopped to ease himself on sighting a police roadblock: at [14].

(3) It was ludicrous that the three police officers had concocted their evidence to put him in trouble. It was improbable that all of them made the same mistake in seeing the appellant switch his seat with Ang. The failure of one of these witnesses to arrest the appellant per se did not raise a reasonable doubt in the Prosecution's case: at [15] to [17].

Krishna Jayaram v PP [1989] 2 SLR (R) 21; [1989] SLR 696 (folld)

Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 1985 Rev Ed) s 3 (consd)

Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 1997 Rev Ed) s 43 (4) (consd)

Subir Singh Panoo (Sim Mong Teck & Partners) for the appellant

R D Gangatharan (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the respondent.

Yong Pung How CJ

Introduction

1 The appellant was faced with the following two charges in the court below:

First Charge

You, Goh Eng Lee, M/32 NRIC: S1730303A are charged that you on 27 January 1998 at about 1.10am along Mandai Road, Singapore, when you were disqualified from holding or obtaining all classes of driving licence for a period of one year from 7.3.97 to 6.3.98 by the court and whilst so disqualified did drive motor car no: SCQ 9779 C, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 43 (4) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 1997 Rev Ed).

Second Charge

You, Goh Eng Lee, M/32 NRIC: S 1730303 A are charged that you on 27 January 1998 at about 1.10am along Mandai Road, Singapore, did use motor car no: SCQ 9779 C, whilst there was not in force in relation to the user of said vehicle such a policy of insurance in respect of the Third Party Risks as complies with the requirements of Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189) and you have thereby committed an offence under s 3 (1) of the Act and punishable under s 3 (2) of the same Act.

The appellant was convicted on both charges and sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment and four years' disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving licence for all classes of vehicles for the first charge, and fined...