Public Prosecutor v Ling Swe Lang

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Ronald Gwee Tiong Kee
• Judgment Date: 28 April 2006
• Neutral Citation: [2006] SGDC 94
• Plaintiff Counsel: Insp Rasiah (TP)
• Published date: 19 May 2006
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Defendant Counsel: Accused in person
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Confiscation and forfeiture,Forfeiture of motor vehicle used as public service vehicle without valid licence in force in respect of vehicle authorising such use,Whether forfeiture provision mandatory or discretionary in its operation,Whether conditions of provision satisfied,Whether accused or owner of car giving sufficient reasons why court should exercise discretion (if it had any) not to forfeit car,Section 101(7) Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed),Insurance,Motor vehicle insurance,Compulsory,Third-party risks,Offences,Using motor vehicle in Singapore without there being in force in relation to use of vehicle a policy of insurance or security in respect of third-party risks complying with requirements of Act,Accused using Malaysian-registered car without requisite third-party insurance,Sentence,Sections 3(1), 3(2) Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Rev Ed),Road Traffic,Using motor vehicle as public service vehicle without valid licence in force in respect of vehicle authorising such use,Accused using car as taxi in Singapore without requisite public service vehicle licence,Sections 101(1), 101(2) Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed),Words and Phrases,"Shall Â… make an order for the forfeiture of the motor vehicle",Whether mandatory or discretionary

28 April 2006

District Judge Ronald Gwee

1. The accused, Ling Swe Lang (“Ling”), a Malaysian national, pleaded guilty to 2 charges in relation to her use of a Malaysian registered vehicle WCV 7778 (the “Car”) on 10 February 2006 at about 5 pm along Ban San Street, Singapore.

2. The 1^st charge stated that Ling had used the Car at the said location on the said date and time, as a public service vehicle without there being in force in respect of the Car, a valid public service vehicle licence granted under Part V of the Road Traffic Act (“RTA”), authorizing the use of the Car as a public service vehicle, to wit a taxi. This was an offence under section 101(1), punishable under section 101(2) of the RTA.

3. The 2^nd charge stated that Ling had used the Car (as aforesaid) whilst there was not in force in relation to its use, the requisite policy of insurance as prescribed under the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (“MVA”), an offence under section 3(1), punishable under section 3(2) of the MVA.

4. Ling admitted, without qualification, to the matters stated in the amended statement of facts (“SOF”) which had been read out to her.

5. The SOF stated that Ling was the driver of the Car. The Land Transport Authority had received information that Malaysian registered cars were being used as taxis to ferry fare-paying passengers from Ban San Street in Singapore to Johor Bahru in Malaysia. On 10 February 2006, at about 5 pm, at Ban San Street, 4 persons were observed being led by Ling towards the Car which was parked at Arab Street. The 4 persons boarded the Car and Ling drove the Car towards Jalan Besar.

6. The Car was trailed and was stopped along Bukit Timah Expressway. The passengers were interviewed. It was established that Ling had charged the passengers a fare for the journey from Ban San Street to Johor Bahru. Ling was arrested and the Car was impounded. Investigations revealed that Ling had solicited for passengers and had agreed to transport the 4 passengers for an agreed fare, which was to be paid upon completion of the journey. There had not been issued a public service vehicle licence for use of the Car as a taxi. Ling had used the Car as a taxi. The said illegal use of the Car also meant that the Car was not properly covered by the requisite insurance coverage, as the insurance cover excluded use of the vehicle for hire or reward.

7. Ling was convicted on both charges on her plea of guilt. In mitigation, she pleaded for a light sentence and hoped that the Car would not be forfeited. She said that the Car belonged to her younger sister. Ling said that she was a divorcee who had custody of her children. She had committed the offence to support her children, who were in school. Ling said that she was in financial difficulties and asked for leniency.

8. The Prosecution made an application for the Car to be forfeited, pursuant to section 101(7) of the RTA, and tendered the written application of the Public Prosecutor. Ling had said that the Car belonged to her sister and had hoped that forfeiture not be ordered. One Ling Swo Ching, said to be Ling’s sister and said to be the owner of the Car was in Court and urged the Court not to forfeit the Car. The said Ling Swo Ching also apologized.

9. On the 1^st charge, Ling was fined $2,400. On the 2^nd charge, Ling was fined $600 and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for a period of 2 years. I further made a prohibition order against Ling for a period of 2 years, pursuant to section 47F of the RTA. Finally, pursuant to the written application of the Public Prosecutor under section 101(7) of the RTA, I ordered that the Car be forfeited to the State (the “Forfeiture Order”). Ling appealed only against the Forfeiture Order.

10. Section 101(7) of the RTA provides, “Where it is proved to the satisfaction of a court before which the prosecution has been held that a motor vehicle seized under subsection (5) has been used in the commission of an offence under this section, the court shall, on the written application of the Public Prosecutor, make an order for the forfeiture of the motor vehicle, notwithstanding that no person may have been convicted of an offence.”

11. The ingredients set out in section 101(7) were clearly made...