Public Prosecutor v Crescenzo Mauro

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Salina Bte Ishak
• Judgment Date: 06 June 2011
• Neutral Citation: [2011] SGDC 181
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: TP 096827352713, Magistrate’s Appeal No 133 of 2011/01
• Published date: 21 June 2011
• Year: 2011
• Hearing Date: 02 June 2011
• Plaintiff Counsel: Police Prosecutor Senior Station Inspector Abdul Razak
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Pratap Kishan of M/s Kishan & V. Suria Partnership
• Citation: [2011] SGDC 181

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: 1 The complainant is Hairel Rizal Bin Hashim attached to Traffic Police Department. 2 The defendant is Crescenzo Mauro, male aged 36 years old, Singapore Permanent Resident NRIC No: XXX. 3 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. 4 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.

Antecedents

The Accused is untraced.

Mitigation

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, I was informed that he had been in Singapore since 1997.

The Sentence

The Accused was sentenced to a fine of $800 in default four days’ imprisonment and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for a period of twelve months for all classes of vehicles.

Dissatisfied with the sentence imposed by me, the Accused lodged a Notice of Appeal on 3 June 2011. The Accused has paid the court fine in full.

I now provide the reasons for my decision.

...