Kim Sung Young v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Abdul Rahim B A Jalil
• Judgment Date: 31 October 2003
• Neutral Citation: [2003] SGDC 267
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2003
• Published date: 17 November 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: David Khoo (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Defendant Counsel: Sant Singh and Foo Cheow Ming (Sant Singh Partnership)
• Citation: [2003] SGDC 267

1 The accused, Kim Sung Young, claimed trial to and was convicted of the following four charges:

DAC 055486/2002

You, Kim Sung Young, male Korean 43 years, FIN No F2311542P, Passport No SC0004020, are charged that you on or about the 26^th day of June 2002 at about 2.05am along East Coast Road towards Mountbatten Road, Singapore, did drive motorcar SDR6470U on the road whilst under the influence of drink to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control over the said vehicle, to wit, by failing to keep a proper lookout for vehicle in front causing it to hit the rear of a stationary motor taxi SHA 7640D and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 67(1)(a) of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, Chapter 276.

And, further, that you, before the committing of the said offence, that is to say that you, on 5.10.2000 had been convicted at Subordinate Court of Singapore, for an offence under section 67(1) of the Road Traffic Act, Chapter 276, which conviction has not been set aside, and you shall be punishable under section 67A (1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act, Chapter 276.

DAC 055487/2002

You, Kim Sung Young, male Korean 43 years, FIN No F2311542P, Passport No SC0004020, are charged that you on or about the 26^th day of June 2002 at about 2.05am along East Coast Road towards Mountbatten Road, Singapore, did drive motorcar SDR6470U, when you were under disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving licence for all classes of vehicles for a period of two years with effect from 5^th October 2000 to 4^th October 2002, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 43(4) of the Road Traffic Act, Chapter 276.

DAC 055488/2002

You, Kim Sung Young, male Korean 43 years, FIN No F2311542P, Passport No SC0004020, are charged that you on or about the 26^th day of June 2002 at about 2.05am along East Coast Road towards Mountbatten Road, Singapore, did drive motorcar SDR6470U whilst there was not in force in relation to the use of the said vehicle, such a policy of insurance in respect of the Third Party Risk, as complies with the requirements of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks & Compensation) Act, Chapter 189 and you have thereby committed an offence under section 3(1) of the said Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act and punishable under section 3(2) of the same Act.

DAC 055489/2002

You, Kim Sung Young, male Korean 43 years, FIN No F2311542P, Passport No SC0004020, are charged that you on or about the 26^th day of June 2002 at about 2.05am along East Coast Road towards Mountbatten Road, Singapore, whilst driving motorcar SDR6470U did drive otherwise than in an orderly and careful manner and without due regard to the safety of others, to wit, by failing to keep a proper lookout for vehicle in front knocking into the rear of a stationary taxi SHA 7640D and you have thereby committed an offence under Rule 29 of the Road Traffic Rules and punishable under section 131(1A) of the Road Traffic Act, Chapter 276.

Evidence adduced by the prosecution

Seet’s evidence

2 The prosecution’s case against the accused is based to a large extent on the evidence of Seet Nah Hock (‘Seet’), a taxi driver, who testified that on 26 June 2002, he was in a taxi SHA 7640D plying for hire. Seet said that at about 2am he stopped his taxi along the left side of the left lane of East Coast Road, which was a four-lane road (two lanes in each direction) in the direction of the city. He stopped the taxi just beyond the driveway into the carpark of Katong Mall about 21 metres from the junction of Joo Chiat Road and East Coast Road, to wait for patrons of pubs in Katong Mall in order to pick them up as fare. Suddenly there was a ‘bang’ and his taxi moved forward a distance of two ‘car lengths’. Seet realized then that his taxi had been collided into. The driver of the vehicle that had collided into the rear of his taxi (who was the accused) alighted from his vehicle. The accused was wobbling and unsteady on his feet. He also looked flushed and tired. When Seet inspected his taxi, he noticed that an area at the back had caved in as a result of the collision. The right side of the rear mudguard of the taxi was damaged whereas the left mudguard was not seriously damaged. Seet also testified that three minutes after his taxi was stationary along East Coast Road and prior to the collision, a police car was parked about five ‘car lengths’ in front of his taxi.

Sergeant Tan’s evidence

3 Police Sergeant Tan Chor Hock (‘Sergeant Tan’) testified that on the same day at about 2am, he was on patrol car duty with his colleague, Police Woman Corporal Joyce Loo (‘Corporal Joyce’). He was the driver of a police car that was proceeding along the right lane of East Coast Road towards the direction of the city. They had come from Still Road and travelled into East Coast Road without stopping at the junction of East Coast Road and Joo Chiat Road. Sergeant Tan saw a taxi by the side of East Coast Road near Minnale Pub. The taxi was at a distance of about 70 metres from the junction of East Coast Road and Joo Chiat Road. The hazard lights of the taxi were turned on and blinking. Immediately after the patrol car had crossed the junction of East Coast Road and Joo Chiat Road by two to three metres, Sergeant Tan saw the accused’s motorcar travelling in front of his patrol car at a speed of 50 to 55 kmph along the left lane of the road and colliding into the stationary taxi. After the collision, Sergeant Tan parked his patrol car in front of the taxi. Thereafter, both he and Corporal Joyce alighted from their car.

4 Sergeant Tan saw Seet standing behind the taxi and asked him whether he was injured. Seet told Sergeant Tan that he was not. Seet then pointed out the accused, who was then at an open space beside Minnale Pub, to Sergeant Tan. The accused was walking in an unsteady and swaying fashion. Sergeant Tan approached the accused. He and Corporal Joyce tried to hold on to the accused as the accused was unsteady. The accused looked at Sergeant Tan and Corporal Joyce and shoved them to one side and continued walking. Sergeant Tan asked the accused to produce his driving licence and furnish his particulars but the accused just looked at Sergeant Tan and walked away. The accused then sat down.

5 Later, another patrol car came with a breathalyser kit and a police officer from the patrol car asked the accused in English to blow into the breathalyser. The accused just looked at the officer and looked away. Sergeant Tan then contacted the Operations Room and was instructed to place the accused under arrest. Thereafter, Sergeant Tan handcuffed the accused and took him away in the patrol car.

6 On arrival at the Traffic Police Headquarters, Sergeant Tan and Corporal Joyce had to assist the accused out of the car by each holding him under the armpit at each side.

Corporal Joyce’s evidence

7 Corporal Joyce testified that she was in the same patrol car as Sergeant Tan. Sergeant Tan was driving and she was seated at the left front seat. She saw a taxi stationary along East Coast Road near Minnale Pub. She saw the accused’s car three to four car lengths ahead of her patrol car. This car was travelling at a speed of 60 to 70 kmph and it was about seven to eight car lengths behind the taxi when she noticed the accused’s car. The said car then collided into the rear of the taxi.

8 After the collision, Corporal Joyce and Sergeant Tan alighted from their vehicle. She noticed the accused standing near the entrance to Katong Mall. When they approached him, the accused walked away from them in an unsteady manner.

9 Corporal Joyce spoke to the accused in English. When the breathalyzer arrived, she tried to get the accused to take the test but he again moved away from her. She and Sergeant Tan consulted the Police Operations Room and was advised to arrest the accused. They then arrested the accused. The accused was unsteady on his feet and was unable to walk properly. He also tended to trip and swayed from left to right. Corporal Joyce confirmed that the accused appeared to be drowsy, in a daze and a little shocked. After the accused had been handcuffed, he needed assistance to stand up and get into the patrol car.

10 There was also evidence adduced that after the accused was brought to the Traffic Police Headquarters, Sergeant Ng Kok Kee attempted four times to administer the Breath Evidence Analyzer (BEA) test to the accused but was not successful. I did not find his evidence material or relevant considering that the prosecution had confirmed that it was not relying on the BEA test result as proof of the drink driving charge or any other charge and that the prosecution had not preferred any charge of refusing to provide a breath specimen when required to do so lawfully.

11 The Investigating Officer, Inspector Mohd Taufik, testified that on 5 October 2000, the accused was convicted in a District Court, after he pleaded guilty to a charge under section 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276). He was fined $2,500 and disqualified from holding and obtaining all classes of driving licence for a period of two years from 5 October 2000 to 4 October 2002.

12 Sergeant Nge Keok Kim (‘Sergeant Nge’) was also called by the prosecution to adduce the accused’s previous long statement (exhibit P14) and the cautioned statement (exhibit P15). These were statements that the accused had made in relation to a previous incident on 2 September 2000 when he was arrested at East Coast Parkway. This incident resulted in the accused being charged and convicted as stated in the preceeding pararaph. Sergeant Nge testified that the accused was able to speak and understand English and that he recorded the two statements from the accused in English without the assistance of a Korean interpreter.

End of case for prosecution

13 The defence did not make a submission that there was no case to answer at the end of the case for the prosecution. There...