Public Prosecutor v Kasmijan bin Kimin

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Khoo Oon Soo
• Judgment Date: 21 September 1992
• Neutral Citation: [1992] SGDC 2
• Published date: 11 April 2013
• Court: District Court (Singapore)

The defendant was one of the four who were tried before me for the offence under Section 64 (1) of the Road Traffic Act Chapter 276. This offence is commonly described as "hell riding". The charge (P1A) against the defendant (the appellant herein) was this:-

You, Kasmijan Bin Kimin, M/29 NRIC No: [xxx]

are charged that you, on the 20th day of January 1991 at about 1.35 an along Selegie Road towards Serangoon Road, Singapore, did ride motor cycle no: FH 8636 A in a manner which was dangerous to the public having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the nature, conditions and use of the road and the amount of traffic which was actually at the time, or which might reasonably be expected to be on the road, to wit, by riding at a fast speed together with three other motor cycles FH 6965 M, FG 8345 U and FH 3213 U, you were seen weaving in and out of moderate moving traffic, and switching lanes by cutting into the path of each other without any signal, thereby causing yourselves and others vehicles to apply brakes and swerve to avoid a collision. Upon reaching the left bend along Selegie Road, you were also seen negotiating the bend at a fast speed close to one another at a very low angle and almost grazed each other. Thereafter, you continued to ride at a fast speed, overtaking each other in order to gain the lead, and exchanging lead on several occasions at the speed of about 95 to 100 kmph which was in excess of the authorised speed limit of 50 kmph of the road, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 64 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, Chapter 276.

At the end of the trial the sentences against all four defendants were as follows:-

1) Kasmijan bin Kimin (B1) - 4 weeks imprisonment and disqualified from all classes for 5 years.

2) Zaini bin Mohd Noor (B2) - 4 weeks imprisonment and disqualified from all classes for 5 years.

3) Abrahim bin Salleh (B3) - 2 weeks imprisonment and disqualified from all classes for 3 years.

4) Jufri bin Din (B4) - 2 weeks imprisonment and disqualified from all classes for 3 years.

The defendant Kasmijan alone is dissatisfied with the sentence of the court and has lodged this appeal. Stay of sentence and disqualification was granted pending the outcome of this appeal. Though only one appeal has been lodged, it would be more convenient to give a complete Grounds of Decision to include my decision on the other three defendants.

Prosecution Case

There were only three witnesses for the prosecution. They were the arresting officers, namely, Corporal Mohd Nasir Osman (PW1), Corporal Hanafi Maharan (PW2), and Mohd Salleh (PW3). The last witness has since left the Police Force.

The evidence from all three arresting officers were substantially similar.

On 19th January 1991 the three Traffic Police Officers led by Corporal Nasir were on anti "hell riding" operation. They were on duty from 10 pm that night to 7 am the following day. On 20 January about 1.35 am, they were patrolling along Stamford Road towards the direction of Orchard Road when they saw four motor cyclists stopping at the red light at the junction of Dhoby Ghaut and Orchard Road. This was the point marked X1 in the sketch map tendered by the prosecution (P5). At this point of time the traffic police officers were about 5 to 6 car lengths behind the four motor cyclists.

When the light turned green the said four motor cyclists sped off at a fast speed towards the direction of Selegie Road.

Corporal Nasir and his partners gave chase and kept their observation on them throughout. They were seen riding at a fast speed with each other and were weaving in and out in moderate moving traffic and switching lanes by cutting into path of each other causing themselves and other vehicles to apply brakes and to swerve to avoid collision. There was a sharp left bend along Selegie road. When they negotiated this bend they did so at a fast speed, close to one another and at a low angle and almost grazed each other. Then they continued towards the direction of Serangoon Road at a fast speed, overtaking each other in order to gain lead and exchanging lead with each other on several occasions. When they were doing this the traffic police officers noted their speed to be between 95 to 100 km/h. This was in excess of the authorised speed limit of 50 km/h. As the speed varied and the distance was short the traffic police officers did not clock the speed.

There were several traffic lights along the route taken by the four motor cyclists. As it turned out, these traffic lights were green in their favour throughout. The motor cyclists were seen travelling along Selegie Road past the junction of Bukit Timah and Rocher Canal Road and along Serangoon Road. Just before the junction of Serangoon Road with Syed Alwi Road, at the point marked X2 on the sketch plan marked P5, the traffic police officers moved in and managed to stop all four motor cyclists.

Corporal Nasir stopped two of the motor cyclists. The first motor cycle was motor cycle number FH 6965 M. its rider was Zaini bin Mohd Noor (B2). The second motor cycle stopped was FG 8345 U. Its rider was Jufri bin Din (B4) . Corporal Nasir explained the of fence to both of them and issued the notice of intended prosecution to them. (P6 and P7).

On his part Corporal Hanafi stopped motor cycle number FH 3213 U. It rider was Abrahim (B3). Corporal Hanafi similarly explained the offence of dangerous driving to the rider and also issued a notice of intended prosecution to him (P8).

Corporal Salleh (as he then was) stopped the motor cycle number FH 8636 A. Its rider was Kasmijan bin Kimin (B1). Corporal Salleh also explained the offence of dangerous riding to him and issued a notice of intended prosecution. (P9).

I was satisfied that there was evidence, to establish each and every ingredient of the respective charge. I was satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant a conviction. After the usual allocution all four defendants elected to give evidence in the witness stand. It would be necessary to give separate consideration to each defence as well as...