Mohamad Iskandar bin Basri v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tay Yong Kwang J
• Judgment Date: 08 September 2006
• Neutral Citation: [2006] SGHC 158
• Date: 08 September 2006
• Subject Matter: Accused sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment,Accused driving at high speed and failing to stop at cross junction while traffic lights red against his favour,Whether sentence imposed by trial judge manifestly excessive,Accused firefighter responding to emergency call,Principles,Accused's fire-fighting vehicle colliding with taxi killing one and injuring three others,Appropriate sentence,Sections 304A, 337, 339 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed),Sentencing,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Accused pleading guilty to charge of causing death and grievous hurt and hurt by rash act
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 95 of 2006
• Published date: 11 September 2006
• Defendant Counsel: April Phang (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ismail Hamid (Ismail Hamid & Co)

8 September 2006

Tay Yong Kwang J:

The background facts

1 The 24-year-old appellant is a firefighter holding the rank of Sergeant in the Singapore Civil Defence Force (“SCDF”). At the material time, he was a section commander leading a team of firefighters. On 7 November 2005 at around 12.30pm, he was driving a SCDF Red Rhino, a firefighting vehicle, along Choa Chu Kang Way to respond to a fire that had broken out on the third storey of a building at Sungei Kadut Street 1. The Red Rhino had several firefighters on board. It was travelling on the second lane from the left of the four-lane dual carriageway.

2 At the signalised cross junction of Choa Chu Kang Way and the slip road leading to the Kranji Expressway (“KJE”), the appellant failed to stop the Red Rhino when the traffic lights were showing red against it. With the Red Rhino’s siren and blinking lights turned on, the appellant assumed that other vehicles would give way to the Red Rhino and he therefore drove it across the junction. Unfortunately, a taxi with three passengers on board, which had the right of way, was travelling diagonally across the junction from the Red Rhino’s right towards the KJE. The resulting collision caused the taxi’s left front passenger door to be dented and its left rear passenger door to be ripped off, among other damage. At the time of accident, traffic flow was light, visibility was clear and the road surface was dry.

3 The taxi driver, Peh Peng Chew (“Peh”), aged 55, suffered some bruises, a laceration and some superficial abrasions. He was treated as an outpatient and was given three days’ medical leave. The three passengers were Bedah binte Samat (“Bedah”), aged 53, seated at the left rear passenger seat, Zuraidah binte Mohd Salim (“Zuraidah”), aged 23, seated next to Bedah, and Nurul Syafiqah binte Razali (“Nurul”), aged two, who was being carried by Zuraidah. Bedah was the mother of Zuraidah, who, in turn, is the mother of Nurul. Sadly, Bedah sustained serious multiple injuries and did not survive the accident. Zuraidah, who was then 28 weeks pregnant, sustained injuries to her abdomen and her chest. Her left pubic bone and some of her ribs were fractured. Fortunately, the foetus inside her suffered no injuries. Zuraidah was warded in hospital for nine days and was given 40 days’ medical leave thereafter. The young Nurul sustained multiple small superficial lacerations on her face. She was warded in hospital for two days and then discharged.

The charges

4 As a result of the accident, the appellant was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, the following:

(a) One charge of doing a rash act not amounting to culpable homicide by failing to conform to the red traffic light signal and thereby causing the death of Bedah, an offence punishable under s 304A of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed), which provides for a maximum of two years’ imprisonment or a fine or both.

(b) One charge of causing grievous hurt to Zuraidah by doing an act so rashly as to endanger human life, an offence punishable under s 338 of the Penal Code, which provides for a maximum of two years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to $1,000 or both.

(c) One charge of causing hurt to Peh and to Nurul by doing an act so rashly as to endanger the personal safety of others, an offence punishable under s 337 of the Penal Code, with a maximum imprisonment term of six months or a fine of up to $500 or both.

The district judge’s decision

5 For the s 304A charge, the appellant was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment and was disqualified from obtaining or holding a driving licence for all classes of motor vehicles for eight years (pursuant to s 42 of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed). For the s 338 charge, he was sentenced to undergo six months’ imprisonment. For the last charge under s 337, he was sentenced to undergo three months’ imprisonment. The nine-month and the six-month terms were ordered to run consecutively while the three-month term was to run concurrently with them, resulting in a total of 15 months’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed against sentence but began serving his sentence immediately.

6 The district judge held that the appellant’s plea of guilt did not automatically entitle him to a discount in sentence as it had to be counterbalanced by public interest. Further, such a plea carried less weight in the face of overwhelming evidence. For these two propositions, he cited the decisions in Sim Gek Yong v PP [1995] 1 SLR 537 and Wong Kai Chuen Philip v PP [1990] SLR 1011. He also took into account the fact that one person died, three others were injured as a result of the rash act and that Zuraidah’s then unborn baby was put in danger. He also relied on the High Court decision in PP v Gan Lim Soon [1993] 3 SLR 261 (“Gan Lim Soon”), which I shall discuss later.

7 Noting that the offences in issue were essentially those concerning public safety, particularly in respect of road usage, the district judge was of the view that the emergency vehicle was a “potentially lethal device” and that drivers of such vehicles responding to emergencies “must accept the responsibility of having to exercise due care and attention to other road users despite switching on the Red Rhino’s siren warning other road users that the firemen were attending to an emergency” (Mohamad Iskandar bin Basri v PP [2006] SGDC 124 at [22]). He found the appellant’s rash act “not particularly odious” but was of the view that the sentence imposed should serve as a general deterrence to other motorists. He also held that any financial hardship suffered by the appellant and his family carried little weight, and no weight at all when the term of imprisonment was short. In the result, he saw no reason to depart from the usual tariff for such offences and sentenced the appellant in the way described earlier.

The submissions at the appeal

8 The appellant lodged an appeal against the above sentences. Counsel for the appellant indicated that he was appealing only against the imprisonment terms. He argued that there was “not a scintilla of evidence that the Appellant was speeding on approaching the junction”. The appellant actually saw that a lorry on his right had stopped at the junction but assumed that other vehicles would likewise stop and give way to the Red Rhino. The appellant was given eight minutes to arrive at the scene of fire. He took the precaution of switching on the siren and the Red Rhino’s blinking lights when he was approaching the junction in question. After the accident, he came down and rendered assistance to the victims of the accident. He co-operated with the police in investigations. To show his remorse, he visited the victims in hospital, sought their forgiveness and attended the funeral for Bedah. Zuraidah not only forgave him, she signed a note on 2 June 2006 addressed to the district judge stating as follows:

I am one of the victims in the above accident. The deceased person, Madam Bedah Binte Samat is my mother.

I have been informed that the driver of the other motor vehicle, an SCDF Red Rhino is presently facing criminal charges for the accident. I understand that he was responding to an emergency at the material time.

He had also assisted the victims after the accident.

I hope that your Honour will impose a lenient sentence on him on all the charges he is facing.

9 The appellant was a first offender and was truly contrite. The SCDF, in a letter dated 16 May 2006 from the Commander of the 4th Civil Defence Division, stated that the appellant was a reliable and responsible firefighter. It also commented that despite the accident, he continued in his duties and led a team to successfully extinguish a dangerous fire in a chemical factory on 2 February 2006.

10 The appellant was the main source of income for his family which comprised his unemployed father, his mother (a teacher in a child care centre) and three younger siblings. His rash driving was in the course of rushing to save property and possibly lives on the day in issue. It was submitted therefore that a fine or a short custodial sentence would be adequate punishment in the circumstances.

11 The Prosecution submitted that the privilege of the right of way for emergency vehicles under r 12(1) of the Road Traffic Rules (Cap 276, R 20, 1999 Rev Ed) was circumscribed by the proviso to r 12(4) which states that drivers of such vehicles were not relieved from the provisions of any law relating to dangerous, rash or negligent driving. Due to its sheer size, the Red Rhino was “a more dangerous ‘lethal weapon’” as demonstrated by the fact that the taxi involved in the accident was “totally pulverized on collision” while the Red Rhino sustained minimal damage and the people on board suffered no injuries.

12 It was also argued that the junction in issue was a major intersection and the appellant should therefore have approached it carefully and ensured that he had a clear view before driving through it against the light signals. There was no evidence that other vehicles with the right of way had stopped to give way to the Red Rhino. The lorry that was stationary to the right of the Red Rhino had stopped in conformity with the red light and was blocking the appellant’s view of part of the junction. Even if the appellant had not been speeding across the junction, it did not mean that he was neither rash nor negligent. Although it could not be stated conclusively what speed the Red Rhino was travelling at, the indisputable fact was that the consequences of the accident were devastating.

13 The Prosecution urged me to dismiss the appeal as the facts did not show any reason to depart from the usual practice of imposing a custodial sentence for rash drivers who caused death. It was submitted that a message should be sent out to drivers of emergency services vehicles that they owed a duty of care to other road users even when attending to emergency calls.

My decision

14 It is extremely sad...