Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Khairil bin Abdul Rahim

JudgeWong Choon Ning
Judgment Date30 December 2011
Neutral Citation[2011] SGDC 436
Citation[2011] SGDC 436
Docket NumberERP 29026 of 2011
Published date02 February 2012
Hearing Date30 December 2011,28 July 2011
Plaintiff CounselMr Edmund Woo
Defendant CounselAccused in Person
CourtMagistrates' Court (Singapore)
District Judge Wong Choon Ning:

The accused pleaded guilty before me to a charge under Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks & Compensation) Act (Cap 189) for having used a motor-cycle when there was not in force in relation to the user of the said vehicle such a policy of insurance in respect of third-party risks as complies with the requirements of the said Act. He also pleaded guilty to another charge under Section 15 of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276) for having used the said motor-cycle on the same date, time and place when there was not in force a motor vehicle licence.

After hearing the accused’s oral and written mitigation plea and in consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I imposed a fine of $500 or in default 5 days’ imprisonment for each of the first and second charges. For the first charge, I further ordered the accused to be disqualified from driving all classes of vehicles for a period of one year.

The defence is dissatisfied with the orders of sentence and now appeals against them. The accused has paid up the fines.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Statement of Facts (PS 1), to which the accused admitted without qualification, revealed that, on 21 May 2011, at about 11.30 pm, the accused was riding his motor-cycle bearing registration number AB 123 C, when he was stopped at a road block. Upon checking the accused’s motor-cycle, the police officer discovered that the accused did not have valid road tax or third-party insurance policy for the use of the motor-cycle. The vehicle licence for the said vehicle had expired on 26 Dec 2010 and the insurance policy had also expired on 15 Apr 2011. The accused had, therefore, used the motor-cycle when there was not in force in relation to the user of the said vehicle third-party insurance as well as a motor vehicle licence.

ANTECEDENTS

The accused was a first offender.

MITIGATION PLEA

In his written mitigation plea (D1), the accused stated that he had neglected to renew the road tax and insurance as he had been preoccupied with running his own production company and doing free-lance work as a camera-man. A letter written and signed by one of the accused’s business partners was annexed to the written mitigation to state that, as the partner was currently serving his national service, the accused ran the day-to-day operations of their business.

The accused stated, in his mitigation plea, as he was preoccupied with his work, he relied on letters of reminder sent to him in order to remember when he ought to renew his road tax and insurance. The accused’s explanation for his omission to renew the road tax in Dec 2010 and the insurance in May 2011 was that this was due to him not having received the letters of reminder to renew the road tax and the insurance for the said vehicle. Upon realising, after the police check at the road block on 21 May 2011 (Sat), that the road tax and insurance had expired, he quickly renewed them on 23 May 2011 (Mon).

To show that his failure to renew the road tax and insurance was not a deliberate omission, the accused annexed a document to his written mitigation plea to indicate that he had renewed the insurance for another motor-cycle (bearing registration number DE 456 F) which he owned, in Mar 2011. The accused stated that he had also renewed the road tax for this second motor-cycle in Mar 2011. According to the accused, the road tax and insurance for the second motor-cycle was renewed because he had received the reminder letter to renew the road tax for it. The accused hence attributed the blame for his current offences (that is, his omission to renew the road tax and insurance for the motor-cycle bearing registration number AB 123 C) to the fact that he did not receive the reminder letter for this vehicle.

The accused also submitted that he had a slipped disc which would cause him to experience acute pain if there was prolonged standing and walking. The pain would, however, be greatly reduced if he could use his own motor vehicle. The accused also needed to travel to multiple locations for his work both during the day and at...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT