Joseph Roland v Public Prosecutor

JurisdictionSingapore
Judgment Date24 October 1995
Date24 October 1995
Docket NumberMagistrate's Appeal No 193/95/01
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Roland Joseph George John
Plaintiff
and
Public Prosecutor
Defendant

[1995] SGHC 245

Yong Pung How CJ

Magistrate's Appeal No 193/95/01

High Court

Road Traffic–Offences–Drink driving–Blood alcohol concentration in excess of 80mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood–Presumption of inability to have proper control of vehicle–Effect of presumption–Section 70 Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 1994 Rev Ed)–Road Traffic–Offences–Drink driving–Sentence–Accused disqualified from driving for a year–Whether any special reasons existed for court to excuse accused from disqualification–Sections 67 (1), 67 (2) and 70 Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 1994 Rev Ed)–Words and Phrases–“Special reasons”–Reasons must relate to the facts or circumstances of the offence–Section 67 (2) Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 1994 Rev Ed)

The appellant pleaded guilty to an offence of driving whilst under the influence of alcohol to an extent as to render him incapable of properly controlling his vehicle under s 67 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 1994 Rev Ed) (“the Act”). The trial judge sentenced the appellant to a fine of $2,000 and disqualified him from driving all classes of vehicles for one year. The appellant appealed against the sentence of disqualification. It was argued that there were special extenuating circumstances, namely: the appellant had been allegedly forced to drink beer by friends, the appellant was the sole breadwinner in his family and needed to drive to make a living, and the appellant was remorseful. It was also argued that the appellant, in fact, had proper control of his vehicle, as his blood-alcohol ration was “not excessive in his individual case to be under undue influence of drink or of a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of such vehicle”. Further, the limit of 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood prescribed in s 70 of the Road Traffic Act was “only a guideline [as to] whether [a] driver had or did not have proper control of his vehicle”.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) Section 67 (2) of the Act expressly provided that a person convicted of an offence under this section “shall” be disqualified from driving for a minimum 12-month period unless the court “for special reasons thinks fit to order otherwise”. The “special reasons” which sufficed to excuse an accused from disqualification must be reasons which related to the facts or circumstances of the offence and not to the offender himself: at [5].

(2) In this case, there were no “special reasons” for the purposes of s 67 (2) of the Act. The appellant was, in truth, not “forced” to drink beer, and his remorse and the fact that he was the sole breadwinner in his family and needed to drive to make a living were not special reasons, as they did not relate to the facts and circumstances of the offence: at [7], [8] and [9].

(3) The appellant had pleaded guilty to a charge which alleged him to have been driving “whilst under the influence of drinks to such an extent as to render [him] incapable of having proper control over” his vehicle. Under s 244 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed), when an accused had been convicted on his own plea of guilt, “there shall be no appeal except as to the extent or legality of the sentence”. Thus, the appellant's plea of guilt precluded him from asserting at the appellate stage that he had in fact been in proper control of his vehicle at the relevant time; this was an assertion which effectively denied the very basis of his conviction under s 67 (1) of the Act: at [11].

(4) Where an accused was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • MV Balakrishnan v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 8 July 1998
    ...Colin v PP [1995] 1 SLR (R) 388; [1995] 1 SLR 687 (folld) Chapman v O'Hagan [1949] 2 All ER 690 (folld) Roland Joseph George John v PP [1995] 3 SLR (R) 562; [1996] 1 SLR 179 (folld) Kanapathipillai, Re [1960] MLJ 243 (folld) King (Magill), The v Crossan [1939] NI 106 (folld) Mah Kah Yew v P......
  • Tan Meng Lian and Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 30 July 2001
    ...MV Balakrishnan v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate's Appeal No. 198 of 1997, unreported). 87. In Joseph George Roland v Public Prosecutor [1996] 1 SLR 179, it was held that the "special reasons" which would suffice to excuse an accused from disqualification must be reasons which relate to the ......
  • Sivakumar s/o Rajoo v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 20 February 2002
    ...[1946] 2 All ER 552 and subsequently followed in local decisions including PP v Balasubramaniam [1992] 1 SLR 822 and Joseph Roland v PP (1996) 1 SLR 179. It is clear that whether the facts of the case amount to ‘special reasons’ is a question of law and should be decided in view of the circ......
  • Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Khairil bin Abdul Rahim
    • Singapore
    • Magistrates' Court (Singapore)
    • 30 December 2011
    ...which relate to the facts or circumstances of the case, and not to the offender himself (Joseph George Roland v Public Prosecutor [1996] 1 SLR 179). The purpose of the mandatory disqualification from driving for a minimum of 12 months is to deter persons from using vehicles without third-pa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2006, December 2006
    • 1 December 2006
    ...the offender as a result of the disqualification have been held not to constitute special reasons: see PP v Mohd Isa, Joseph Roland v PP[1996] 1 SLR 179 and Chua Chye Tiong v PP[2004] 1 SLR 22. 12.40 The courts have been slow to find the presence of ‘special reasons’ in order to protect roa......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT