Public Prosecutor v Hung Kim Thong

CourtDistrict Court (Singapore)
JudgeRonald Gwee Tiong Kee
Judgment Date30 July 2004
Neutral Citation[2004] SGDC 180
Citation[2004] SGDC 180
Published date10 August 2004
Plaintiff CounselASP James Ng
Defendant CounselMr Edmond Pereira (Edmond Pereira and Partners)

30 July 2004

District Judge Ronald Gwee

1. The accused, Hung Kim Thong (“Hung”), pleaded guilty to the 1st of 2 charges he was facing. The 1st charge concerned his having driven motor car SDR 8835 M at the junction of Unity Street and Clemenceau Avenue on 23 December 2003 at about 3.00 am, when he had so much alcohol in his body that the proportion of it in his breath exceeded the prescribed limit, an offence punishable under Section 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act (“RTA”). The proportion of alcohol in Hung’s breath was 79 microgrammes of alcohol in every 100 millilitres of breath, more than double the prescribed limit of 35 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath.

2. Hung admitted to the 2nd charge and consented to having the 2nd charge taken into consideration for purposes of sentencing. The 2nd charge was under Section 65 of the RTA.

3. The Statement of Facts (“SOF”) was read out and Hung admitted to the SOF without qualification. On the subject date and time, Hung was spotted by SI Safruddin Othman (the “complainant”), a police officer attached to Orchard Neighbourhood Police Centre, making a left turn into Clemenceau Avenue. The complainant stopped the said motor car and ascertained that Hung was the driver.

4. The complainant observed that Hung smelt of alcohol, had a flushed face and blood shot eyes. The complainant also observed that Hung’s gait was unsteady. The complainant suspected that Hung was driving whilst under the influence of drink and subjected Hung to a breathalyser test. Hung failed this test and was brought to the Tanglin Police Division for the Breath Evidential Analyser test which produced the aforesaid reading of 79 microgrammes of alcohol in every 100 millilitres of breath. As mentioned earlier, Hung had agreed that these were the relevant facts and were true.

5. After carefully considering the mitigation plea presented by Defence Counsel, I sentenced Hung to a fine of $3,800 and ordered that he be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for all classes for a period of 2 years, from the date of conviction, for the 1st charge. The 2nd charge was taken into consideration. Hung paid the fine. Hung filed an appeal only against the disqualification order.

6. The mitigation plea presented by Defence Counsel on behalf of Hung set out Hung’s personal circumstances and the circumstances giving rise to the commission of the offence. Where appropriate I shall quote verbatim from the mitigation plea (with added emphasis where necessary). Hung is 53 years of age and is single. He...

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