Ng Kwee Leong v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 01 September 1998
• Neutral Citation: [1998] SGHC 294
• Docket Number: Magistrate’s Appeal No 60 of 1998
• Date: 01 September 1998
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1998
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ram Goswami (Ram Goswami)
• Citation: [1998] SGHC 294
• Defendant Counsel: RD Gangatharan (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Discrepancies between prosecution witnesses' testimonies,Discrepancies as to timing,Weight of evidence,Evidence,Whether discrepancies material,Whether to reject whole of witness' evidence if it contains a lie on one point,Whether trial judge's findings against weight of evidence and unsupportable

Judgment:

1.YONG PUNG HOW CJ

Introduction

The appellant in this case faced the following charges in the court below:

First charge

You, Ng Kwee Leong, on 28 August 1996, at about 2am at New Bridge Road, Singapore, when driving motor car no EJ 5820 E did have so much alcohol in your body that the proportion of it in your blood exceeded the prescribed limit and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276).

Second charge

You, Ng Kwee Leong, on 28 August 1996 at about 2.53am at New Bridge Road, Singapore, did give Police Corporal Kiang Yew Haw of the Singapore Police Force false information to the effect that you were not the driver of motor car no EJ 5820 E which was involved in an accident on 28 August 1996 at 2am along New Bridge Road, Singapore, which information you knew to be false, knowing it to be likely that you would thereby cause the public servant to omit to carry out investigations against you for driving the said car at the material time, which omission the public servant would not have committed if the true state of facts were known to him and thereby committed an offence punishable under s 182 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

The appellant, who claimed trial, was convicted and sentenced as follows: (a). in respect of the first charge, the appellant was fined $5,000, in default ten weeks` imprisonment, and disqualified from driving all classes of vehicles for three years;

(b). in respect of the second charge, the appellant was sentenced to two weeks` imprisonment.

The disqualification was stayed pending the hearing of this appeal. The appellant appealed against his convictions, but not against his sentences. After hearing counsel for the appellant, I dismissed the appeal and lifted the stay against disqualification. I now give my reasons.

2. The prosecution`s case

On 28 August 1996, at about 2am, a white Mercedes Benz, registration number EJ 5820 E collided into the rear of a lorry along New Bridge Road, near the junction of New Bridge Road and Cantonment Road. At the time of the accident, the appellant had a blood alcohol level of 129mg of ethanol per 100ml of blood. The prosecution`s case was that the appellant was driving the car at the time of the accident, and that he had subsequently, in response to questions by Police Corporal Kiang Yew Haw (PW4), denied that he was the driver, knowing this to be false. The appellant was therefore guilty of drunken driving as well as giving false information to the police.

PW1

3.The mainstay of the prosecution`s case was the evidence of one Karunakaran Murugan (PW1). He had been employed to paint signs on the road. It was drizzling that night. He had lit a fire and was heating up the paint preparatory to painting the signs when he saw a white Mercedes Benz collide into a lorry some four metres away from where he was standing. The car hit some cones which had been placed on the road before crashing into the lorry. One of these cones hit PW1. Immediately after the collision, he walked towards the vehicles to see what had happened. He saw the appellant forcing open the door of the car and getting out of the car. The appellant was getting out from the driver`s seat. There was no one else in the car. The appellant then made a call on his handphone. He was walking quickly to a nearby carpark. Throughout this period, PW1 had not seen the appellant`s sister-in-law, Tan Peng Eng. He had only seen her later after a policeman had arrived. The policeman first questioned Neo Peng Lam (PW3), a subcontractor who was sitting in his own lorry nearby, and heard the sound of a collision. PW3 told him that PW1 had witnessed the accident. PW1 then told the policeman that the appellant was the driver and pointed to the appellant. The appellant said that he was not the driver and raised his hand to hit PW1. Under cross-examination, PW1 said that all of them, including the appellant`s sister-in-law, were by then standing near the police car. When the appellant tried to hit PW1, the policeman and the appellant`s sister-in-law caught hold of his raised hand. The policeman then put a breathanalyser in the appellant`s mouth.

PW2

4.PW2 was the foreman in charge of the lorry involved in the accident. He testified that, when he had gone to inspect the damage to the rear of the lorry, he had not seen any one around. He called the police and returned to work. A man and a woman later appeared. PW2 was unable to confirm if the man and the woman were the appellant and his sister-in-law respectively. The man told him that the woman was the driver. Under cross-examination, PW2 said that he had not seen any fire and that the weather had been dry. Under re-examination, he admitted that there could have been a slight drizzle and confirmed that the workers would have had to light a fire to heat up paint before painting.

PW3

5.PW3, a sub-contractor, was in charge of the workers. He was sitting in his lorry when he heard the collision. His lorry was parked next to the lorry involved in the accident. He walked towards the two vehicles involved in the accident. When he arrived, he found no one in the car. PW1 told him that, after the accident, a bald man in his fifties had walked away from the car. At this point, PW3 saw a man, about 30 to 40 metres away, using a handphone. PW1 pointed to him and said that he was the driver. The man was alone. PW3 had only seen a woman accompanying the man after the police had arrived. Under cross-examination, PW3 said that his workers had lit fires and that it had rained that night. He also said that he had taken about 15 seconds to reach the two vehicles, whereas his workers, including PW1 had only taken about 10 seconds. He confirmed that PW1 had been standing near the policeman when he was questioning the appellant and his sister-in-law. He had not seen the appellant attempt to assault PW1.

PW4

6.PW4, Sergeant Kiang Yew Haw, was the officer called to the scene of the accident that night. He inspected the scene of the accident. There was no one then in the car. When he inquired as to the driver of the car, PW3, together with three or four Indian workers, pointed to the appellant, who was standing some 15 to 20 m away, and identified him as the driver. PW1 was one of the workers who identified the appellant as the driver. PW4 spoke to the appellant. The appellant did not admit to being the driver and said that his sister-in-law had been driving. However, PW4 did not see the sister-in-law until some 10 minutes later. She approached PW4 from behind, while he was still talking to the appellant, and said that she was the driver. PW4 did not believe the appellant. He conducted a breathanalyser test on him. He then placed the appellant under arrest and sent him to Tan Tock Seng Hospital for a blood test. Under cross-examination, he said that no one else was around when he was questioning the appellant and his sister-in-law. The Indian workers were standing some distance away. He did not see the appellant try to assault PW1, nor did he see the appellant carry anything. He also said that the weather was fine and that he did not notice any fires.

7.The trial judge held, at the end of the prosecution`s case, that a prima facie case had been made out against the appellant and he called for his defence.

8. The defence

The appellant gave evidence in his own defence. He testified that, on the night of the accident, he had gone to a pub in Temple Street together with his brother, his sister-in-law (Tan Peng Eng), and some friends. He left together with Tan Peng Eng. By this time, he was drunk. Tan Peng Eng...