Public Prosecutor v Lim Keat Hong
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Low Wee Ping |
| Judgment Date | 26 April 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] SGDC 163 |
| Citation | [2012] SGDC 163 |
| Docket Number | LTA 9112550453, Magistrate’s Appeal No. 82/2012/01 |
| Published date | 18 May 2012 |
| Hearing Date | 03 April 2012 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Mr. Lua Bee Hin, senior prosecutor, LTA, |
| Defendant Counsel | Ms Mary Ong |
| Court | District Court (Singapore) |
The accused was Lim Keat Hong. He was 54 years old and a Singaporean. He was a disabled person. He had to use a wheel-chair to attend court proceedings. He ran a courier service. He drove his saloon car to deliver the documents and letters, with the help of his wife.
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) alleged that the accused had committed the offence of “stopping (his motor car) within a demerit points no stopping zone”. The date and time was 31 August 2012 at 10.44 am. The place was Maxwell Link.
Chronology of proceedingsThe accused went through the following stages of legal and judicial proceedings.
The alleged offence was on 31 August 2011. However, the accused was not served with a summons or notice at the place of the offence or immediately.
About 2 months later, on 21 October 2012, the LTA sent a Notice of Traffic Offence to the accused. The Notice informed the accused that “... You may have the above offence(s) compounded within 28 days from the date of issue of this Notice for a sum of $120.00”. The Notice further stipulated that if the offer of composition was not accepted, “you are required to attend personally at before Subordinate Court No. 25N ... on 9 February 2012 at 6.00 pm to answer the above charge(s)”.
On 9 February 2012, the accused attended personally at Court No. 25N. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereupon, the case was fixed for a pre-trial conference (PTC) in Court No. 21 on 7 March 2012.
On 7 March 2012, at the PTC, the accused again informed the court that he was claiming to be tried. He said, “I did not stop there. There was a lorry reversing at that point in time ... My wife was with me then.” The prosecuting officer informed that he had 2 witnesses. They were the complainant and the “LTA appeal officer”. The case was again fixed for a second PTC in the same Court No. 21 on 21 March 2012.
On 21 March 2012, at the second PTC, the accused repeated that he was still claiming trial. The prosecuting officer stated, “We can consider composition at $120.00”. The accused responded, “I did not stop at this place. Will I be given 3 demerit points?”
Finally, the case was fixed for a trial on 3 April 2012, before me.
The trial Defence counselOn 3 April 2012, at this trial before me, the accused was represented by defence counsel Ms Mary Ong.
Prosecuting officerThe prosecuting officer was Mr. Lua Bee Hin, a senior prosecutor from the Land Transport Authority (LTA).
The chargeAt this trial, the prosecution preferred the following charge (exhibit C1) against the accused:-
Complainant absent“You, Lim Keat Hong ... are charged that you, on 31.8.2011 at about 10.44 am at Maxwell Link, did stop motor car No. SFZ 6055 U within a demerit point no stopping zone, in contravention of Rule 24B of the Road Traffic Rules and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 131(1) and punishable under Section 131(2) of the Road Traffic Act, Chapter 276”.
However, at the outset of the trial, at about 10.12 am, the prosecuting officer informed me that the complainant was absent. The prosecuting officer informed that he had tried to contact the complainant. However, he was told by her employer that “she has resigned”. The complainat’s employer was the company, CISCO Certis. The prosecuting officer further informed that CISCO Certis had already informed the complainant about this trial. The complainant was a foreigner, a Malaysian. However, CISCO Certis was not able to confirm whether she had gone back to Malaysia, the prosecuting officer stated.
Prosecution’s application for DNAQThe prosecuting officer, thereupon, applied for an order of discharge not amounting to an acquittal of the accused (DNAQ).
Defence’s application for DATADefence counsel, Ms Mary Ong, objected to the prosecution’s application. Defence counsel submitted that the accused should instead be granted an order of discharge amounting to an acquittal (DATA)
DecisionI ordered that the accused be granted a DATA.
Notice of appeal by prosecutionOn 16 April 2012, the deputy public prosecutor filed a notice of appeal against the order of DATA.
I now give my reasons.
The proper issues In the predicament in which the prosecution was in, in my view, the issue was
First, I considered the accused’s physical condition. The accused was a disabled person. Before this trial, the accused had already attended 3 other court proceedings. He had to attend these 3 court proceedings and this trial, in a wheel chair. He had to be assisted by his wife. In all these court proceedings, the accused had repeatedly pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Second, I agreed with defence counsel that there had to be finality to this case. The time lapse from the date of the alleged offence to this trial was already about 7 months. A vacation of the trial would require the accused to attend to more court proceedings, including PTCs. Defence counsel submitted that without finality to his case, the accused would “have no peace of mind”. She stated that the accused drives the motor-car for his ‘livelihood”. This pending case had “affected his daily routine”, she submitted.
Third, defence counsel tendered a copy of the translated letter which the accused had sent to LTA dated 6 September 2011 (exhibit D1). It states:-
“I, Lim Keat Hong ... drove pass Maxwell Link on 31st August 2011/10.40 AM. I received (your) summons today, on 6 September 2011 from LTA ... Your inspector is too much; why wasn’t the summons issued to me on-the-spot?
Maxwell Link is a two-way single lane, with a double white line in the middle, five loading bays and three entrances/exits to the carparks. At that time, there were several lorries there loading and unloading. In front of me, there was a lorry reversing hence I had to stop my car to wait. Was it expected of me to fly? I cannot accept such a random summon.
In the end, I spent 10 minutes to drive to the intersection at Maxwell Road and I also stopped there to wait for cars to clear before driving to the major road. Did I breach the law too by stopping my car for this purpose? I hope that LTA could give this a fair investigation”.
The above accused’s letter clearly disclosed that there were disputed issues of fact which had to be determined at this trial. The LTA’s key, and probably only, witness was the complainant. The prosecution’s disclosures to me were startling. On the morning of the trial, the prosecuting officer had to inquire from CISCO Certis as to why the complainant was absent. He was then only informed that she had resigned from CISCO Certis. CISCO Certis was also did not know whether the complainant, a Malaysian, was still in Singapore or had left. The disclosures begged several questions. Did the investigating officer maintain contact with the complainant, in preparation for the coming trial? Why did CISCO Certis allow the complainant to resign and hence leave Singapore, without informing the investigating officer or LTA? When was the last time the prosecution interviewed the complainant? What was the prospect of locating the complainant? Is the investigating officer able to contact the complainant?
Fourth, defence counsel, Ms Mary Ong, made a significant submission as to why this trial should not be vacated. She submitted that the accused was disabled and “could not afford a defence counsel to attend court so many times. This morning, he could have gone to his (work) routine of delivering documents.” She submitted that the likelihood of the complainant coming to testify “is very slim”. I agreed. I...
To continue reading
Request your trial