Lim Hong Eng v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 17 April 2009
• Neutral Citation: [2009] SGHC 92
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 187 of 2008
• Date: 17 April 2009
• Published date: 20 April 2009
• Year: 2009
• Plaintiff Counsel: Subhas Anandan and Sunil Sudheesan (KhattarWong)
• Citation: [2009] SGHC 92
• Defendant Counsel: Francis Ng (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Case would have proceeded in same manner if charge of dangerous driving proceeded with at outset,Causing death by rash or negligent act,Appeals,Offences,No prejudice to accused,Section 338 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed),Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Charge of causing death by rash or negligent act amended to charge of dangerous driving,Road traffic accident,Dangerous driving,Charge,Sentencing,Alteration,Dangerous driving causing death,Criminal Law,Difference between rash and negligent act,Irrelevance of intention to drive dangerously,Subjective intention or knowledge of accused relevant only for purposes of sentencing,Traffic offence,Accused beat red light negligently,Section 66(1) Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed),Accused beat red light,Section 64(1) Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed),Road Traffic,Long custodial sentence for traffic offence only appropriate when offender acted rashly or recklessly

17 April 2009 Judgment reserved.

Choo Han Teck J:

1 The appellant was convicted of one charge of causing death by dangerous driving, an offence punishable under s 66(1) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) with imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, and one charge of causing grievous hurt by doing a rash act, an offence punishable under s 338 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or a fine of up to $1,000, or both. The District Judge sentenced the appellant to 18 months’ imprisonment and disqualified her from holding or obtaining a driving licence for all classes of vehicles with effect from the date of release from prison for the first charge, that is, the charge for causing death by dangerous driving. She was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment for the second charge, that is, the charge for causing grievous hurt by doing a rash act. Both terms of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently, making her total term of imprisonment 18 months. The Appellant has appealed against the conviction and sentence of both charges.

2 The charges against the appellant concerned a road accident which resulted in injury to a motorcyclist and the death of his pillion rider. The accident occurred at the junction of Whitley Road and Dunearn Road (“the Junction”) on Christmas Eve in 2006. At the material time, about 3.48 pm, the appellant was driving her car along Whitley Road in the direction of Orchard Road, and had intended to make a right turn into Bukit Timah Road and then a U-Turn to Raffles Town Club after the Junction. As her car crossed into the Junction she collided with a motorcycle that was travelling along Dunearn Road towards Newton Circus. As a result of the collision, the motorcyclist and the pillion were flung off the motorcycle. The motorcyclist suffered a compound fracture to his left leg while the pillion subsequently succumbed to her injuries and died.

3 The appellant submitted that the District Judge had erred in fact by placing undue weight on the evidence of one Lim Kian Seng (“Lim”), a taxi driver at the scene at the material time. Lim, a prosecution witness, testified that the motorcyclist moved forward into the Junction when the traffic light turned green in his favour. The obvious implication was that the appellant drove through the Junction against the red light (NE pp 20–21). The appellant also submitted that the District Judge had erred by failing to give due credit to the appellant’s consistent evidence that, inter alia, she did not know that the traffic light was not in her favour, and finding that the appellant intentionally drove in a dangerous manner. On the evidence, I see no reason to impugn the finding that the appellant drove through the Junction when the traffic lights were not in her favour. Having regard to the overall evidence, and in particular, the evidence of Lim, whose testimony was accepted by the trial judge, I am of the view that this finding of fact cannot be challenged. As regards the finding that the appellant drove through the Junction intentionally when the traffic lights were not in her favour, I am of the view that this finding was irrelevant so far as guilt was concerned. The offence of dangerous driving is not an offence that depended on an intention to drive dangerously. Whether the accused was driving dangerously is a question of fact to be determined by the court. The subjective intention or knowledge of the accused is relevant only for the purposes of sentencing. Thus, in Lim Chin Poh v PP [1969-1971] SLR 247, Choor Singh J held (at [10] and [13]):

10 … In my opinion the expression “driving in a manner which is dangerous to the public” indicates some dangerous act or manoeuvre on the part of the driver of a vehicle, eg overtaking a vehicle on the wrong side of it, or overtaking in the face of oncoming traffic, or overtaking when unable to see oncoming traffic, or crossing a junction against traffic light, and so on. There must be some positive act on the part of the driver which is dangerous having regard to all the...