Public Prosecutor v Hashim s/o Abdul Samad

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Edgar Foo
• Judgment Date: 05 January 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] SGMC 1
• Court: Magistrates' Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: MAC No. 905337-2020, Magistrate’s Appeal No. 9903-2020-01
• Published date: 12 January 2021
• Year: 2021
• Hearing Date: 07 December 2020
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPP Bjorn Tan (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Gill Amarick Singh (Amarick Gill LLC)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Offences,Penal Code,Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to any person by doing a negligent act as to endanger safety of others,Sentencing,Principles,Disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving license
• Citation: [2021] SGMC 1

District Judge Edgar Foo: Introduction

Mr Hashim s/o Abdul Samad (“the Accused”), a 73-year-old male Singaporean had pleaded guilty to the following charge:

“You… are charged that you, on the 29th day of September 2019 at or about 10.23 p.m., being the driver of motor car, SHD3372R, drove along Jurong West Street 64 towards Jurong West Street 75, Singapore, on lane 1 of 3-lane road, did cause grievous hurt to one, Samsulrudin Bin Sukor, male, Malay, Singaporean, 19 years old, who was the rider to a motorcycle, FBB7772A, by doing an act so negligently as to endanger the personal safety of others, to wit, by failing to keep a proper lookout when making the right turn into Jurong West Central 1 on green light only thus resulted in a collision with the said motorcyclist who was travelling straight from your opposite direction, thereby causing serious bodily injuries to the said motorcyclist and you have therefore committed an offence punishable under Section 338(b) of the Penal Code. (Cap 224, Rev Ed)”

I had convicted the Accused on the above charge on 7 December 2020 and had sentenced him to a fine of $4000 and disqualification from driving all classes of vehicles for a period of 12 months from 7 December 2020.

The Accused had paid the fine of $4,000 on 7 December 2020.

The Accused, being dissatisfied with my decision, had filed his Notice of Appeal against my sentence passed on 7 December. I hereby set out my reasons for my sentence.

Punishment Prescribed by Law

The punishment prescribed under section 338(b) in the case of a negligent act, was imprisonment for a term which might extend to 2 years or with fine which might extend to $5,000, or with both.

Section 42(1) of the Road Traffic Act, Cap 276, also provided that a court before which a person was convicted of any offence in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle, could also order that person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving license for life or for such period as the court might think fit.

Statement of Facts

The Accused had admitted to the following Statement of Facts without qualification:

The parties involved

At the material time, the Accused was the driver of the motor car with the vehicle registration number SHD3372R (“the car”).

The victim was Samsulrudin Bin Sukor, a 20-year-old Singaporean. At the material time, he was the rider of the motorcycle with the vehicle registration number FBB7772A (“the motorcycle”).

First information report

On 29 September 2019, at about 10.23pm, the police received a call informing them a road traffic accident between a car and a motorcycle.

Facts pertaining to MAC-905337-2020

On 29 September 2019, at or about 10.13 p.m., the Accused was driving the car on lane 1 of a 3-lane road along Jurong West Street 64 towards Jurong West Street 75, Singapore. When the Accused approached the signalized cross-junction between Jurong West Street 64 and Jurong West Central 1, he made a right turn into Jurong West Central 1 on a green light. However, the Accused failed to keep a proper lookout when making the right turn into Jurong West Central 1 resulting in a collision with the victim who was riding the motorcycle and was travelling straight from his opposite direction.

The incident above was captured on video footage by the Accused’s in-car camera. The Prosecution had also played the video footage at the hearing before me on 7 December 2020.

Injuries suffered by the victim

As a result of the accident, the victim was conveyed to National University Hospital (“NUH”). According to the medical report from NUH, dated 18 March 2020 and prepared by Dr Lynette Loo, the victim had suffered the following injuries: Right distal radius fracture with intra-articular extension, Bilateral knee lacerations, Abrasions over the face bilateral upper and lower limbs, and Small right apical pneumothorax.

Further, the said medical report also stated that the victim was hospitalized from 29 September 2019 to 2 October 2019, and the victim’s stay in the hospital was not extended due to factors unrelated to his injuries.

According to the medical certificate issued to the victim on 2 October 2019, by Dr Yeo Yi Jie, the victim was given 27 days of hospitalization leave from the 29 September 2019 to 25 October 2019.

Condition of the motorcycle

The following damages were observed on the motorcycle: Rear motorcycle box dislodged, Rear motorcycle box-locking latch broken and not functional, Front portion broken and not functional, Spokes of the front wheel broken, Right footrest dented, and Scratches on the right exhaust pipe.

Condition of the car

The following damages were observed on the car: The front windscreen was cracked on the right side, and Left portion of the front bumper was crumpled, ripped off, broken and not functional.

Prevailing conditions

At the material time, the weather was fine, road surface was dry, the visibility was fair, and the traffic flow was light.

Both the car and the motorcycle also did not have any mechanical faults prior to the accident.

Conclusion

By virtue of the foregoing, the Accused, being the driver of the car, had driven on lane 1 of a 3-lane road along Jurong West Street 64 towards Jurong West Street 75, Singapore, and had caused grievous hurt to the victim, who was the rider of the motorcycle, by doing an act so negligently as to endanger the personal safety of others, by failing to keep a proper lookout when making the right turn into Jurong West Central 1 resulting in a collision with the victim who was travelling straight from the Accused’s opposite direction, and thereby causing serious bodily injuries to the victim. The Accused had thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 338(b) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Edition.

Antecedents

The Accused was untraced with any criminal antecedents. However, I noted that the Accused had committed a large of traffic offences over the years all of which were compounded, some with demerit points issued against the Accused:

S/No.	Date of Offence	Offence	Composition amount	Demerit point
1	16/2/14	Failing to give signal under Rule 2(1) Road Traffic Rules	$70	---
2	10/8/02	Failure to conform to red light signal under s120(1)(b) Road Traffic Act	$200	12
3	24/5/04	Stopping or allowing vehicle to remain at rest on shoulder of expressway under Rule 8 Road Traffic (Expressway Traffic) Rules	$130	4
4	6/8/05	Speeding (Exceed speed limit of 50 km/h) under s63(4) Road Traffic Act	$170	8
5	24/9/05	Parking on footway of road under Rule 28 Road Traffic Rules	$70	---
6	8/7/06	Failure to conform to red light signal under s120(1)(b) Road Traffic Act	$200	12
7	12/11/07	Crossing double white lines under Rule 7(1)(m) Road Traffic (Traffic Signs) Rules	$130	4
8	29/9/10	Failure to conform to red light signal under s120(1)(b) Road Traffic Act	$200	12
9	8/10/12	Speeding (Exceed speed limit of 60 km/h) under s63(4) Road Traffic Act	$130	4
10	12/8/17	Inconsiderate driving (Accident) under s65(b) Road Traffic Act	---	9
11	29/11/17	Speeding (Exceed speed limit of 90 km/h) under s63(4) Road Traffic Act	$130	4
12	14/12/18	Speeding (Exceed speed limit of 70 km/h) under s63(4) Road Traffic Act	$130	4

Prosecution’s submissions on sentence

The Prosecution, in their oral submission, had sought for a fine of $4,000 with a disqualification from driving all classes of vehicles for a period of 12 months.

The Prosecution had submitted that based on the sentencing framework as set out in the case of Tang Ling Lee v PP [2018] SLR 83 (“Tang Ling Lee”), the present case would fall under Band 1 of the Tang Ling Lee sentencing framework. The Prosecution was of the view that the Accused’s culpability was low as he was negligent failing to keep a proper lookout when making the right turn into Jurong West Central 1 resulting in a collision with the victim who was travelling straight from the Accused’s opposite direction. As for the harm caused, the Prosecution was also of the view that the level of harm caused was low. The Prosecution also noted that the Accused had pleaded guilty and he had stopped to render assistance.

Given the above, the Prosecution was of the view that view that the custodial threshold had not been crossed and the Prosecution had sought a fine of $4,000.

On the issue of disqualification, the Prosecution referred me to the case of PP v Ong Heng Chua [2018] 5 SLR 388 (“Ong Heng Chua”) where at [58], the court had observed that disqualification was generally in the region of 12 to 36 months. Given the circumstances of the present case, the Prosecution was of the view that a disqualification of 12 months was reasonable.

Defence’s submission on sentence

The Defence had sought a fine of $3,000 and a disqualification for a period of 11 months. The Defence pointed out that the Accused had been a taxi driver for more than 20 years and he was untraced for any criminal offences. The Defence also stated that the Accused had apologised to the victim.

On the issue of disqualification, the Defence had requested for 11 months’ disqualification because if the disqualification ordered was less than 12 months, the Accused could apply for his driving license to be reinstated after the period of disqualification without having to retake the driving test. The Defence informed me that if the period of disqualification ordered was 12 months or more, the Accused would need to retake his basic theory and driving test in order to get back his driving license. Given the Accused’s age, there was a high chance that the Accused would not be able to pass his driving test...