Public Prosecutor v Lee Hong Hwee
| Judge | Yong Pung How CJ |
| Judgment Date | 29 October 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] SGHC 266 |
| Subject Matter | Using vehicle without insurance policy in respect of third-party risks,Offences,Section 3(1) Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Rev Ed),Road Traffic,Whether proviso in insurance policy excludes insurance coverage because accused was driving de-registered vehicle and without valid vehicle licence |
| Published date | 07 November 2003 |
| Citation | [2003] SGHC 266 |
| Court | High Court (Singapore) |
| Year | 2003 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | David Chew Siong Tai (Deputy Public Prosecutor) |
| Defendant Counsel | Gordon Oh (Ari, Goh & Partners) |
1 The respondent, Lee Hong Hwee, was acquitted in the district court on a charge of using a vehicle without an insurance policy in respect of third party risks, an offence under s 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189) (‘MVA’). The prosecution appealed. I dismissed the appeal, and now give my reasons.
Background
Facts
2 In the district court, evidence was led by way of a statement of agreed facts. The respondent was the registered owner of a motor van bearing the registration number GL 1372 Z (‘the van’). On 8 June 2000, the Land Transport Authority notified the respondent that the Certificate of Entitlement (‘COE’) for the van was due to expire on 31 July 2000. He did not revalidate the COE. On 1 August 2000, the van was automatically de-registered.
3 On 2 August 2000, the ERP facility along Queen Street detected the van entering the ERP zone. The respondent did not dispute that he had been driving the van at the material time. Three different charges were subsequently brought against him in the district court.
The two charges under the Road Traffic Act
4 The first charge alleged that the respondent had used a de-registered vehicle, and had thereby committed an offence under s 10(1) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276) (‘RTA’). The second charge alleged that the respondent had used a vehicle for which no valid vehicle licence was in force, and had thereby committed an offence under s 29(1) of the RTA.
5 The respondent pleaded guilty to the first two charges. He was convicted, and fined $400 in respect of each charge. I refer to these two charges herein as ‘the RTA convictions.’
The charge under the MVA
6 The respondent claimed trial to the third charge. This charge alleged that he had used a vehicle without a policy of insurance in respect of third-party risks, and had thereby committed an offence under s 3(1) of the MVA (‘the MVA offence’).
7 There was no dispute that the van was insured in respect of third-party risks with The Hartford Insurance Company (Singapore) Limited (‘Hartford’) for the period 4 December 1999 to 3 December 2000. This policy is referred to herein as ‘the Hartford policy.’
8 Clause 5 of the Certificate of Insurance forming part of the Hartford policy was headed ‘Persons or Classes of Persons entitled to drive.’ The respondent, as the policy-holder, was clearly one such person. However, clause 5 contained a proviso, which read:
Provided that the person driving is permitted in accordance with the licensing or other laws or regulations to drive the Motor Vehicle or has been so permitted and is not disqualified by order of a Court of Law or by reason of any enactment or regulation in that behalf from driving the Motor Vehicle.
Clause 5 and its proviso are standard terms in many motor vehicle insurance policies.
9 The issue before the district judge was whether, because the respondent had been driving a vehicle that was de-registered, and for which there was no valid vehicle licence, the proviso excluded insurance coverage so that he had also committed the MVA offence.
10 It was not disputed that the respondent held a valid Class 3 driving licence at the material time. The district judge therefore had to decide what effect the RTA convictions had on the operation of the Hartford policy.
The decision below
11 The district judge found that the RTA convictions did not affect the operation of the Hartford policy. He was of the view that clause 5 and the proviso referred to a person’s legal ability to drive, as distinct from the manner in which the motor vehicle driven may or may not be used. The district judge determined that the word ‘disqualification’ as used in the proviso had to mean express disqualification from, or the loss of, the right to drive. In his view, the RTA convictions did not have this effect.
12 That being the case, the district judge acquitted the respondent of the MVA offence. In the course of his reasoning, the district judge relied on the Malaysian case of Public Prosecutor v Lim Ching Chuan
The appeal
13...
To continue reading
Request your trial