Ho Chun Kow v PP

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 08 June 1990
• Date: 08 June 1990
• Docket Number: Criminal Revision No 5 of 1990
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Ho Chun Kow

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[1990] SGHC 126

Chan Sek Keong J

Criminal Revision No 5 of 1990

High Court

Road Traffic–Offences–Drink driving–Being under influence of drink or drug such as to be incapable of having proper control over motor vehicle–First conviction under s 68 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 1985 Rev Ed)–Whether court could make disqualification order–Sections 42 (1) and 68 (1) Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 1985 Rev Ed)

The petitioner had pleaded guilty to a charge under s 68 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the Act”). The magistrate imposed a fine and disqualified the petitioner from driving all classes of vehicles for 12 months.

The petitioner petitioned for the High Court to exercise its revisionary power and set aside the disqualification. The petitioner contended that the magistrate had no power to impose an order of disqualification as it was the petitioner's first conviction under s 68 (1).

Held, allowing the petition:

(1) Section 68 (1) of the Act did not provide for disqualification on a first conviction. It was s 68 (2) which expressly provided for such a punishment but only on a second or subsequent conviction. Thus, if the court had a power to impose a disqualification order on a first conviction, the power had to be found in some other provision of the Act or some other written law. Section 42 (1) of the Act was the only other provision relating to disqualification for road traffic offences: at [3].

(2) Section 42 (1) of the Act was expressed to apply only to an offence in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle. However, s 68 (1) made clear that a person chargeable thereunder was one who at the relevant time was “not driving the vehicle”. An offence under s 68 (1) would thus not be an offence within the ambit of s 42 (1). The opening words of s 42 (1) were sufficiently unambiguous to give rise to such a conclusion: at [3] and [11].

(3) The magistrate had no power to make a disqualification order against an offender on a first conviction under s 68 (1) of the Act and the order was set aside: at [12].

Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 42, 68 (consd); s 67

Lim Choon Mong (Lim & Lim) for the petitioner

Lee Sing Lit (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the Prosecution.

Judgement reserved.

Chan Sek Keong J

1 The petitioner pleaded guilty to a charge under s 68 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the Act”). He was fined $500 and also disqualified from driving all classes of vehicles for 12 months. It was the petitioner's first conviction under the section. The statement of facts accepted by the petitioner when he pleaded guilty stated that at about 11.45pm on 2 November 1987, the petitioner was driving his car along Commonwealth Avenue when he failed to have proper control of his car which collided with a taxi which...