Public Prosecutor v Crescenzo Mauro

CourtDistrict Court (Singapore)
JudgeSalina Bte Ishak
Judgment Date06 June 2011
Neutral Citation[2011] SGDC 181
Citation[2011] SGDC 181
Publication Date21 June 2011
Docket NumberTP 096827352713, Magistrate’s Appeal No 133 of 2011/01
Plaintiff CounselPolice Prosecutor Senior Station Inspector Abdul Razak
Defendant CounselMr Pratap Kishan of M/s Kishan & V. Suria Partnership
District Judge Salina Ishak: The Charge

This is an appeal against the sentence imposed by me on 2 June 2011 against the Accused, Mr Crescenzo Mauro, an offence of riding a motor cycle FX9223 S when he did not possess a valid Class 2B driving licence under Section 35(1) Road Traffic Act, Chapter 276.

Summary of Facts

The Statement of Facts (“Exhibit P1”) which the Accused had agreed to without qualification reads as follows: The complainant is Hairel Rizal Bin Hashim attached to Traffic Police Department. The defendant is Crescenzo Mauro, male aged 36 years old, Singapore Permanent Resident NRIC No: XXX. On 20th January 2010, a notice to furnish driver’s particulars were sent to the registered owner of the motorcycle FX 9223 S to furnish the rider’s particulars who rode the said motorcycle on 26 December 2010 along Bukit Timah Road. The driver’s particulars was then furnished to be of defendant. Upon screening defendant, it was discovered that defendant does not possess any valid driving licence. The Licensing Officer of Traffic Police also confirmed that the defendant does not possess a class 2B driving licence. As such, defendant has committed an offence of driving without a licence under Section 35(1) read with Section 35(3) of the Road Traffic Act, Chapter 276.


The Accused is untraced.


In his mitigation, Counsel for the Accused submitted that he has not wasted the precious time of the Prosecution and the Court. He had readily co-operated with the police in their investigation into the offence and had taken a certain course at the earliest opportunity.

Personal Background

The Accused is an Italian national married to a Singaporean. They have a one year old child. The Accused works as a Chef in an Italian restaurant and became a permanent resident in 2007.

Background to Offence

The Accused possesses a driving licence from Italy and had been using that foreign driving licence. Counsel submitted that he accepts that it was wrong of him to continue riding with his Italian driving licence although he was in Singapore for such a long period of time.

It was further submitted that he had mistakenly continued driving in Singapore with his foreign driving licence although he was a Singapore Permanent resident. Counsel urged the Court to impose a light fine for the reasons set out in the written plea in mitigation.

When I asked Counsel how long the Accused had been in Singapore,...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT