Gurbak Singh v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 11 March 1998
• Neutral Citation: [1998] SGHC 72
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 203 of 1997
• Date: 11 March 1998
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1998
• Plaintiff Counsel: Amolat Singh (Amolat & Partners)
• Citation: [1998] SGHC 72
• Defendant Counsel: RD Gangatharan (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Evidence,Road Traffic,Driving while disqualified,Witnesses,Whether adverse inference to be drawn against prosecution for failing to call witness,Offences,Attendance,Prosecution fails to produce maker of statements as witness,Adducing statements and statutory declaration of deceased at trial,Whether statements and statutory declaration of deceased person can be adduced in evidence at trial against appellant,Whether appellant has suffered any prejudice

Judgment:

YONG PUNG HOW CJ

The appellant appealed against his conviction on a charge of driving while disqualified and on the consequential charge of driving without valid insurance coverage. These are offences under s 43(3A) Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 1997 Ed) and s 3(1) Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189) respectively. On appeal it was argued that the learned district judge should not have accepted the prosecution`s evidence on the ground that it was in conflict with evidence given by one Ang Cheng Kok (Ang), now deceased. I dismissed the appeal and now give my reasons.

2. The prosecution`s case

I turn first to the evidence adduced by the prosecution. This was largely based on the testimonies of PW1 Cpl Roezaini bin Jamboori and PW2 SC Wakif bin Mohd Shariff. On the night of 24 August 1996, they were on duty together with SC Lee Tiong Peng, patrolling the Clementi area. At about 1am, while waiting at the traffic light junction of Dover Road and Clementi Road, PW1 spotted a white Volvo driving toward the Sussex Estate area. There was no dispute that the vehicle in question was SBC 9533E (the white Volvo). As the vehicle passed PW1 from the left, he noticed only one person, the driver, in the vehicle. At this point, PW1 alerted PW2 to also keep watch on the white Volvo.

3.They observed the car turning into Sussex Estate via Horsham Road. Being familiar with the area`s high incidence of car-theft and house-breaking, PW1 followed the white Volvo into Sussex Estate. After turning into Horsham Road, he switched off his headlights and continued trailing the white Volvo.

4.The white Volvo turned into a cul-de-sac, which was later identified by PW1 to be Arundel Road. PW2 testified that the white Volvo stopped at a spot near an animal clinic. The driver stepped out of the car and made his way towards the pavement. PW2 testified that he saw only one person alight from the car. PW1 directed PW2 and SC Lee to go and stop the driver. At the same time, PW1 switched on his car`s spotlights towards the driver and shouted for the driver to stop. However the driver continued walking nearer the bushes until PW2 and SC Lee caught hold of him and brought him back to the car. PW1 and PW2 identified the driver as the appellant.

5.PW1 had suspected the case to be one of car-theft. He proceeded to question the appellant as to whose car he was driving. The appellant replied that the car was driven by a Chinese friend who stayed at Clementi Avenue 6 and that he himself was only a passenger in the car. He said that the friend had left to take some other transport home.

6.PW3 Gan Boon Huay was the investigating officer in charge of the case and tendered documentary evidence showing the appellant`s disqualification on a previous conviction for drunken driving. He also brought a report from the insurance company that the policy for the white Volvo concerned would only cover a licensed driver. Investigations had revealed that the white Volvo had been given to one Kong Ah Swee (Kong) for repairs. Kong in turn had sent the vehicle to the appellant to be repaired.

7.PW4 Yusri bin Saad was the investigating officer in charge of the appellant`s arrest. PW4 carried out investigations into the ownership of the vehicle and how it came into the hands of the appellant. On the morning of the appellant`s arrest, following statements made by the appellant, PW4 contacted Ang to go to the police for the purpose of making a statement.

8. The defence

The appellant said that on the day in question, he had just finished repairing the white Volvo. Ang was going to help him test drive the car since Ang knew he was disqualified from driving. After work, he was driven home by Ang in the white Volvo to Horsham Road. He stayed at Block 407, Clementi Avenue 1 and this was just behind the Horsham Road area. They parked the car in a dead-end off Horsham Road, locked the vehicle and proceeded to walk to the main road. The appellant soon realized that he had left his pager in the car. Ang gave him the car keys and headed off home while he returned to get his pager from the car. Ang left the keys with the appellant because he would use the car the next day for his brother to fetch their mother to the market.

9.When he had...