Public Prosecutor v Joye Goh Hui Ci
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Shawn Ho |
Judgment Date | 22 May 2023 |
Neutral Citation | [2023] SGDC 99 |
Court | District Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | District Arrest Case No. 912262 of 2022 & Ors |
Hearing Date | 17 May 2023 |
Citation | [2023] SGDC 99 |
Year | 2023 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Mr Chin Jincheng (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Defendant Counsel | Mr Cory Wong (Invictus Law Corporation) |
Subject Matter | Criminal Law,Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Disqualification,Special Reasons |
Published date | 27 May 2023 |
The Accused, Ms Joye Goh Hui Ci, pleaded guilty to one charge under s 3(1) punishable under ss 3(2) and 3(3) of the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Rev Ed).
The sole issue was whether there were special reasons regarding the driving disqualification. The Defence sought a driving disqualification of not more than 11 months for four reasons:
All things considered, while I empathised with the Accused’s personal circumstances, there was no special reason to dispense with the 12-month disqualification. She was fined $500.
No appeal has been lodged. I set out my reasons.
ChargesThe Accused pleaded guilty to one charge under s 3(1) punishable under ss 3(2) and 3(3) of the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Rev Ed) (“the Act”).
The charge was as follows:
You, are charged that you, on 20 December 2021, at about 8.31pm, at the vicinity of Blk 165 Stirling Road, did permit one Desmond Tee Guo Quan to use a motor vehicle bearing registration number SMU3796C, whilst there was not in force in relation to the use of SMU3796C by the said Desmond Tee Guo Quan a policy of insurance or a security in respect of third-party risks that complied with the requirements of the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Rev Ed) (“MVA”), and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 3(1) of the MVA punishable under Sections 3(2) and 3(3) of the MVA.6
The Accused consented for 6 other charges to be taken into consideration for sentencing purposes. These charges comprised:
The Accused is Joye Goh Hui Ci, a 24-year-old female Singaporean.10
The involved party is Desmond Tee Guo Quan, a 30-year-old male Singaporean. At the time of the offences, the Accused was in a relationship with Desmond.11
Sometime before 20 December 2021, the Accused rented a black-coloured motorcar bearing registration number SMU3796C (“SMU3796C”).12
On 20 December 2021, sometime before 8.31p.m., the Accused permitted Desmond to drive SMU3796C. At the material time, Desmond did not possess a valid Class 3 driving license. In her own investigative statements, the Accused admitted to knowing that Desmond did not possess a valid Class 3 driving license, but permitted Desmond to drive SMU3796C as she was in a relationship with Desmond and was afraid of rejecting his request.13
On 20 December 2021, at about 8.31p.m., Desmond drove SMU3796C to the vicinity of Blk 165 Stirling Road with the Accused’s permission. The Accused and three other individuals were in SMU3796C together with Desmond. Desmond drove SMU3796C to the vicinity of Blk 165 Stirling Road in order to commit acts of harassment on behalf of unlicensed moneylenders. At the material time, there was not in force in relation to the use of SMU3796C by Desmond a policy of insurance or a security in respect of third-party risks that complied with the requirements of the Act.14
The Accused and Desmond were subsequently arrested on suspicion of having committed acts of harassment on behalf of unlicensed moneylenders.15
By virtue of the foregoing, the Accused has committed an offence under s 3(1) punishable under section 3(2) and section 3(3) of the Act.16
Legislative Intent behind the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act The Act’s preamble states that it was enacted to “provide against third-party risks arising out of the use of motor vehicles and for the payment of compensation in respect of death or bodily injury arising out of the use of motor vehicles and for matters incidental thereto” (see also Poh Chu Chai,
At the second reading of the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Bill, the Minister for Labour and Law, Mr K.M. Byrne, said [
This Bill re-enacts the provisions of Part II of the Road Traffic Ordinance …
By way of historical background, Part II of the Road Traffic Ordinance contained the provisions found in Part II of the Road Traffic Ordinance of the Straits Settlements 1941 (“1941 Ordinance”). Part II of the 1941 Ordinance dealt with compulsory third-party liability insurance connected with the use of motor vehicles. The 1941 Ordinance repealed the Straits Settlements Road Traffic (Third-Party Insurance) Ordinance 1938 and reproduced the provisions of the 1938 Ordinance in Part II of the 1941 Ordinance. It was the 1938 Ordinance which first introduced the principle of compulsory third-party insurance to the Straits Settlements, based on the United Kingdom model.
Having briefly examined the Act’s genesis, what is the policy behind the interpretation of section 3?
At its heart, section 3 seeks to achieve the dual aims of ensuring that victims of traffic accidents are not left without any compensation, and also to deter irresponsible motorists from driving without the appropriate insurance coverage:
For the background behind s 3(4) of the Act, see the remarks of the Minister for Labour and Law, Mr K.M. Byrne, during the second reading of the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Bill [
The Act’s
The seriousness of the offence finds expression in the mandatory 12-month disqualification order and a possible custodial sentence that avail the judge in sentencing the offender:
At this juncture, I paused to observe that the gravity of s 3 is underscored by the mandatory imprisonment for such offences in England in the past:
“Prior to 1965, disqualification or, at one time,
imprisonment was obligatory for using a motor vehicle without insurance, or causing or permitting such use” (emphasis added).
The policy behind the mandatory 12-month disqualification order is deterrence:
In sum, it would be repugnant to the Act’s legislative intention if motorists do not face the criminal consequences of driving without appropriate insurance coverage:
The prescribed punishment for s 3(1) punishable under ss 3(2) and 3(3) of the Act is:
An offence’s statutory maximum sentence signals the gravity in which Parliament views such offences. A sentencing judge ought to take this into account when determining precisely where the offender’s conduct falls within the entire range of punishment set by Parliament:
To continue reading
Request your trial