Public Prosecutor v Mohammad Bin Salim

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Salina Bte Ishak
• Judgment Date: 29 January 2010
• Neutral Citation: [2010] SGDC 33
• Published date: 05 March 2010
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Lua Bee Hin, LTA Prosecuting Officer
• Defendant Counsel: Mohammad Bin Salim, the accused acting in person

29 January 2010

District Judge Salina Ishak:

1. This is an appeal by the Accused, Mohammad Bin Salim, against his disqualification order only after I had found him guilty and convicted him after a trial for the following charges:

ERP 048136/2009

AMENDED FIRST CHARGE

You, MOHAMMAD BIN SALIM
MALE, AGE: 43 YEARS OLD (D.O.B: 16.1.1966)
NRIC NO: S1770725F

are charged that you on 26.8.2008 at about 8.49pm at HarbourFront Centre, Maritime Square, being the sole proprietor of M/s Ramako Limo Services, registered owner and licensee of motor excursion bus No. PA 7219 X did cause the vehicle to be driven by one Mohsein Bin Salim when he was not a holder of an excursion bus driver’s vocational licence granted under Part V of the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) Rules authorizing him to do so, in contravention of Rule 6 of the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) 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.

ERP 048136/2009

AMENDED SECOND CHARGE

You, MOHAMMAD BIN SALIM
MALE, AGE: 43 YEARS OLD (D.O.B: 16.1.1966)
NRIC NO: S1770725F

are charged that you on 26.8.2008 at about 8.49pm at HarbourFront Centre, Maritime Square being the sole proprietor of M/s Ramako Limo Services, registered owner and licensee of motor excursion bus No. PA 7219 X did cause the vehicle to be driven by one Mohsein Bin Salim when there was not in force in relation to the user of the vehicle, a policy of insurance that complies with the requirement of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act Chapter 189 contrary to Section 3(1) and punishable under Section 3(2) of the said Act, Chapter 189;

Background

2. The Accused is the sole proprietor of M/s Ramako Limo Services that deals with transportation for excursions as well as the provision of a private car for hire. Two vehicles, a motor excursion bus PA7219X and Mercedes Benz limousine were registered in the name of this sole proprietorship. The principle offender in respect of the present charges is the Accused’s elder brother, Mohsein Bin Salim who had been dealt with for the said offences on an earlier date.

3. The two charges in the present case arose when officers from the Land Transport Authority conducted a check on a motor excursion bus, PA 7219 X at HarbourFront Centre on 26 August 2008 at 8.49 pm. This bus had been driven by the Accused’s elder brother when he was not a holder of the requisite vocational licence and consequently was not covered by a policy of insurance in respect of third-party risks. The Accused had entrusted the day-to-day operations of M/s Ramako Limo Services to his elder brother and was aware that the latter did not have a valid bus driver’s vocational licence on the date in question. The Accused would only come on a monthly basis to sign the cheques or to purchase new items for the business.

4. It was an agreement between the Accused and his elder brother that the key to the said excursion bus would be kept by their mother in a drawer at her residence. It was also undisputed that the Accused’s elder brother who resided with their mother had unrestricted access to the said key and could retrieve the key without having to ask their mother when it was inconvenient to do so. The Accused’s defence to the present charges was that he had not authorized his elder brother to drive the said excursion bus.

5. On the facts of the present case, as I found that the Accused had endorsed the state of affairs in M/s Ramako Limo Services that led to the wrongful use of the said motor excursion bus as defined by Chief Justice Yung Pung How(as he then was) in Chua Chye Tiong v PP [2004] 1 SLR 22, I convicted the Accused on the two charges, namely of causing his elder brother to drive the said motor excursion bus when he was not a holder of the requisite vocational licence and consequently was not covered by a policy of insurance in respect of third-party risks .

The Sentence

6. On the facts of the present case, after a careful consideration of the...