Kang Ngah Wei v Commander of Traffic Police

• Judge: Tan Lee Meng J
• Judgment Date: 07 January 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] SGHC 4
• Citation: [2002] SGHC 4
• Defendant Counsel: Jeffrey Chan Wah Teck (Senior State Council)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Andrew Hanam (Hanam &Co)
• Date: 07 January 2002
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 601603 of
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Remedies,Administrative Law,Whether to grant leave,When leave will be granted,Revocation of applicant's driving licence by Commander of Traffic Police,Application for leave to apply for order of certiorari to quash decision,Reason for requiring leave to apply,Certiorari,Whether Commander's decision outrageous or defying logic

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

1. The applicant, Ms Kang Ngah Wei @ Charlene whose driving licence was revoked by the Commander of Traffic Police on 15 October 2001 sought leave to apply for an order of certiorari to quash the decision to revoke her driving licence. Mr Jeffrey Chan, Senior State Counsel, who appeared for the Commander of Traffic Police, objected to leave being granted to her to apply for the said order

Background

2. Ms Kang was involved in a motor accident along Lornie Road on 19 September 2001 at 4.30 am. Her car hit a lamp post. She filed a report with the traffic police on the same day at 7.15 pm. In it, she stated as follows:

On 19 Sept 2001 at about 4.30 am to 5 am after dropping a friend’s son off at Andrew Road, I proceed to Bukit Timah via Lornie Road. I was going home. I was travelling on the left first lane.

I had an acute asthma attack which resulted in my car swerving up a pavement. In my state of health and shock I [stepped] on the accelerator and the car [moved] forward and hit a lamp post.

(emphasis added)

3. Ms Kang also forwarded to the traffic police a letter dated 19 September 2001 from a Dr Vida Chou from the Family Health Medical Centre. In it, Dr Chou stated as follows:

She has had bronchial asthma since childhood and uses inhalers when necessary. She suffered from an acute attack of asthma last night and had difficulty breathing, while driving at 4.30 am this morning. This is for your information.

4. In view of the fact that Ms Kang claimed that the traffic accident in question was caused while she suffered from an acute attack of asthma, the Commander of Traffic Police decided to revoke her driving licence. On 15 October 2001, the traffic police sent Ms Kang a letter, which stated as follows:

It has been reported that you were involved in a traffic accident on 19 September 2001 at about 5.00 hours along Lornie Road. You were suffering from an acute attack of asthma at [the] time of the accident. A medical report from Dr Vida Chou of the Family Heath Medical Centre reflects that you were suffering from an acute attack of asthma and had difficulty breathing while driving at 4.30 am.

For the safety of yourself and other road users, it has been decided to revoke your driving licence. Please surrender your driving licence … within two weeks of the receipt of this letter.

5. Ms Kang, who decided to challenge the decision of the Commander of Traffic Police, applied for leave to apply for an order of certiorari to quash the decision.

Test for determining whether or not leave should be granted

6. The test for determining whether or not leave should be granted to a person to apply for an order of certiorari was considered by the Court of Appeal in Public Service Commission v Lai Swee Lin Linda [2001] 1 SLR 644, 653. In that case, LP Thean JA, who adopted Lord Diplock’s threshold test in National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617, said at p 653:

Leave would be granted, if there appears to be a point which might, on further consideration, turn out to be an arguable case in favour of granting to the applicant the relief claimed.

Relevant provisions of the Road Traffic Act

7. At this juncture, the relevant provisions of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276) which empower the police to revoke the driving licence of a person who is a source of danger to the public ought to be considered. Section 37(6) of the Act provides as follows:

If it appears to the Deputy Commissioner of Police that there is reason to believe that any person who holds a driving licence is suffering from a disease or physical disability likely to cause the driving by him of a motor vehicle, being a motor vehicle of any such class or description as he is authorised by the licence to drive, to be a source of danger to the public and, after making such inquiry as he considers necessary, the Deputy Commissioner of Police is satisfied that the licence holder is suffering as aforesaid then, whether or not the licence holder so suffering as aforesaid has previously passed a test under this section, the Deputy Commissioner of Police may, after giving to the licence holder notice of such intention, revoke the driving licence.

(emphasis added)

8. By virtue of section 2 of the Road Traffic Act, the term "Deputy Commissioner of Police" includes any police officer not below the rank of sergeant authorised by him in writing by name or office to exercise the powers vested by the Act in the Deputy Commissioner of Police. As has been mentioned, in the present case, it was the Commander of Traffic Police who revoked Ms Kang’s driving licence.

9. Section 37(8) of the Act provides a mechanism for a person whose licence has been revoked on the ground of public safety to attempt to get back his licence. It provides as follows:

The licence holder may, except in the case of such diseases and disabilities as may be prescribed, claim to be subjected to a test as to his fitness or disability to drive a motor vehicle and, if he passes the prescribed test, the driving licence shall not be revoked or, if it has already been revoked, shall be returned to the licence holder and the revocation thereof shall be rescinded.

Ms Kang’s grounds for seeking leave

10. Ms Kang attacked the decision of the Commander of Traffic Police to revoke her driving licence on the grounds of procedural impropriety and/or breach of the rules of natural justice and/or unreasonableness.

Whether there has been procedural impropriety or a breach of the rules of natural justice

11. Ms Kang’s assertion that the decision to revoke her driving licence was flawed on the ground of procedural impropriety or a breach of the rules of natural justice will first be considered. Her position was put as follows:

Aside from the letter from the traffic police dated 15 October 2001 and the police report filed by the Plaintiff, there were no correspondence by letter or telephone between the Plaintiff and the traffic police. Neither were there any meetings, interviews or discussions between the traffic police and the Plaintiff to ascertain her medical condition to determine whether it...