Public Prosecutor v Chen Horng Yeh David

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Terence Chua Seng Leng
• Judgment Date: 03 December 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] SGDC 326
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2007
• Published date: 12 February 2008
• Plaintiff Counsel: Steven Lua Bee Hin (LTA)
• Defendant Counsel: Wendell Wong
• Citation: [2007] SGDC 326

3 December 2007

District Judge Terence Chua

1. The accused, David Chen Horng Yeh ("the accused"), faced one charge under Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act ("the Act"). He pleaded guilty to the charge.

2. The charge was read and explained to the accused in English as well as the prescribed punishment. He understood the nature and consequences of his plea and admitted to the Statement of Facts as laid out by the Prosecution without qualification. I found him guilty of the charge and convicted him accordingly. Prosecution then submitted that the accused had no antecedents.

Facts

3. According to the Statement of Facts, investigations revealed that the registered owner of the motor vehicle SFA 9978 T was Shelley Kang Min Lee, the General Manager of M/S Hawk Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, of which the accused was the Managing Director. The vehicle, in the possession of the company, had been rented out on a monthly basis for a rental fee of $2,000 per month for the period between 30 October 2006 and 2 March 2007.

4. There did exist an insurance policy in force for the vehicle for the period between 5 November 2007 and 4 November 2007. However, it did not cover the use of the vehicle for reward or hire. As such, there was no insurance policy in respect of Third Party risks in force for the vehicle at the material time. The accused, as Managing Director, had permitted the use of the vehicle without that insurance coverage.

5. In the plea in mitigation, Counsel for the accused laid out the circumstances under which the vehicle had been rented. M/S Hawk Asia ("the company") is a car rental business established in 1995 and has a current fleet of over 370 vehicles. The vehicle SFA 9978 T was not part of this rental fleet, but one that the company bought for the use of Shelley Kang, mainly to visit customers in the course of her work. Sometime in September 2006, a client of the company, Mr Jason Mark, complained that the car that he had hired from the company, a Hyundai Tuscon, was too small for his family needs and asked for a MPV on a temporary basis. Mark was an employee of Accenture, a corporate client of the company's.

6. As there were no MPVs available within the fleet, the staff of the company offered Mark the use of the vehicle SFA 9978 T as a temporary replacement car. All this was done without the involvement of the accused, who did not have any direct contact with Mark or Accenture during this process. The company did not charge any additional fees for the use of the vehicle SFA 9978 T, nor did Mark or Accenture sign any additional or new agreements. The Prosecution did not dispute any of these facts.

7. In the plea in mitigation, Counsel emphasized that the accused did not benefit financially from this, nor was there a lax state of affairs endorsed by the accused, given that this was only one administrative oversight involving a single vehicle despite the company owning over three hundred vehicles. Counsel submitted that there was no deliberate scheme or intention to circumvent LTA regulations — the vehicle had an adequate insurance policy for personal usage and all the company's vehicles were sufficiently insured. In addition, Counsel submitted a letter written to AIG, the insurers for the vehicle SFA 9978 T, explaining the situation, and their reply, which confirmed that, given the circumstances, AIG would have covered the vehicle in the event that Mark had met with an accident.

Special reasons

8. Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act is taken from Section 143 of the United Kingdom's Road Traffic Act 1988. The Singapore Court of Appeal, in Public Prosecutor v Kum Chee Cheong [1994] 1 SLR 231, outlined its operation and purpose:

"On a true and proper construction, s 3(1) of the Act, in our opinion, in effect prohibits any person using a motor vehicle save in a specified circumstance, namely: where there is in force in relation to the use thereof a policy of insurance against third-party risks as complies with the Act... Following the approach laid down in R v Hunt, it seems to us that the mischief at which the Act is directed is the risks of injury or damage to third parties arising from the use of motor vehicles and the purpose of the Act is undoubtedly to make mandatory the necessary insurance to be taken out to cover such risks."

9. The prescribed punishment under section 3(2) of the Act is a fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or both, and in addition, be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving license for a period of 12 months from the of his conviction, unless the Court for special reasons thinks fit to order otherwise. The policy reasons behind the imposition of disqualification under section 3(2) of the Act were considered by the High Court in Stewart Ashley James v PP [1996] 3 SLR 426. There, then-Chief Justice Yong Pung How stated:

"Section 3(2) is...