Public Prosecutor v Ng Jui Chuan
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Choo Han Teck J |
Judgment Date | 11 April 2011 |
Neutral Citation | [2011] SGHC 90 |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Hearing Date | 18 March 2011,11 April 2011 |
Docket Number | Magistrate’s Appeal No 406 of 2010 (DAC No 17852-17853 of 2010) |
Plaintiff Counsel | Amarjit Singh and Geraldine Kang (Deputy Public Prosecutors) |
Defendant Counsel | Raymond Lye (Citilegal LLC) |
Subject Matter | Road Traffic |
Published date | 26 April 2011 |
On 8 November 2009 the respondent was driving along Upper Thomson Road at about 6.48am when he fell asleep at the wheel. His car veered to the side of the road and hit a pedestrian, Mok Sow Loon, killing her. The respondent was charged under s 304A(a) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the Penal Code”) for “doing a rash act not amounting to culpable homicide ... and thereby causing death”. He was also charged under s 337(a) of the Penal Code for causing hurt by doing a rash act that endangered the life of Wee Song Mong, the husband of Mok Sow Loon who was walking beside her at the time of the accident. At the end of the trial, the trial judge amended the charge from s 304A(a) to s 304A(b), namely from causing death by a “rash” act to causing death by a “negligent” act and convicted the respondent on the amended charge. The second charge was similarly amended from s 337(a) to s 337(b) from causing hurt by a “rash” act to causing hurt by a “negligent” act. The punishment under s 304A(a) was “imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both”. The punishment for a s 304A(b) offence was “imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both”. The punishment for an offence under s 337(a) was “imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to $5,000, or with both”. The punishment for an offence under s 337(b) was “imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to $2,500, or with both”.
The trial judge fined the respondent $7,000 and disqualified him from driving all classes of vehicles (the “disqualification”) for three years in respect of the first charge (as amended); and fined him $2,500 in respect of the second charge (as amended). The total fine was thus $9,500 and the period of disqualification was for three years with effect from 28 October 2010. The prosecution appealed against the amendment of the charges and the sentences imposed. Although a trial was conducted, the facts relied upon by the prosecution were based on the Statement of Agreed Facts, which were in turn based on the statement that the respondent had given to the police on the morning of the accident.
The respondent was at the time, a 34-year old manager in a company dealing in milk products. Mok Sow Loon and her husband were both 76 years old. The couple were walking along the road on the extreme left lane towards a church. There was a pedestrian walkway but cars that were parked in front of the terraced houses along the road had partially blocked the walkway. According to the Statement of Agreed Facts, the respondent rose from bed at 8am the previous day, 7 November 2009, and went to work. He left his office sometime in the evening and went for dinner. He was back home at about 10pm and continued to work at home till midnight. He then chatted with a friend over the Internet. He left his flat at 2am to meet the said friend at the friend’s flat at Block 760 Yishun Street 72. The respondent lived at Block 318 Shunfu Road. He told the police that he had drunk two small glasses of wine before 5am, when he was at the friend’s flat. The alcohol content in his blood was 0.07mg per 100ml of blood, an amount conceded by the Deputy Public Prosecutor to be “negligible”. The respondent felt tired at about 6am and decided to return home. He left Yishun, and the route home took him along Sembawang Road to Upper Thomson Road.
An important part of the Statement of Facts (at [6.4] to [6.6] of the judgment below) read as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Public Prosecutor v Hue An Li
...warranted (see likewise [4] of the GD). The DJ quoted extensively from the decision of the High Court in Public Prosecutor v Ng Jui Chuan [2011] SGHC 90 (“Ng Jui Chuan”), which laid down (at [7]) the following propositions: Driving while feeling sleepy was not an offence, let alone an offen......
-
Public Prosecutor v Hue An Li
...warranted (see likewise [4] of the GD). The DJ quoted extensively from the decision of the High Court in Public Prosecutor v Ng Jui Chuan [2011] SGHC 90 (“Ng Jui Chuan”), which laid down (at [7]) the following propositions: Driving while feeling sleepy was not an offence, let alone an offen......
-
Public Prosecutor v Nur Azhar Bin Sulaiman
...would be appropriate punishment. He cited the following cases in support: PP v Lim Yong Gan Gabriel [2010] SGDC 467 PP v Ng Jui Chuan [2011] SGHC 90 PP v Tan Chean Wei [2010] SGDC 240 PP v Lee Kao Chong Sylvester [2012] SGHC 96 The The primary issue in this appeal is whether a custodial sen......
-
Public Prosecutor v Hue An Li
...and a fine of $2500 for a s 337(b) offence and the prosecution’s appeal against the aforesaid sentence was dismissed in PP v Ng Jui Chuan [2011] SGHC 90 where the High Court stated at [7] and [8] as follows: ‘7 Thus, the trial judge was not wrong to have expressed his opinion in an exchange......
-
PROSPECTIVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND LIMITS TO JUDICIAL LAW-MAKING
...Fin L Rev 19. 49 Jessica Young, “Charge over Book Debts – The Question of Control”(2004) 34 HKLJ 227 at 236. 50 [1993] 2 SLR(R) 67. 51 [2011] SGHC 90. 52 Public Prosecutor v Hue An Li [2014] 4 SLR 661 at [124]. 53Cassell & Co Ltd v BroomeELR[1972] AC 1027 at 1070E. 54 This is not to say tha......