District Judge Salina Ishak:
The Charge
The Accused, Miss Ng Suzanne had pleaded guilty to three charges, namely: a charge of willfully furnishing false information to a police officer under Section 81(3) Road Traffic Act (“second charge [Re-Amended]” - DAC43588/2009); a charge of driving motor car SJP 7549 K whilst under disqualification under Section 43(4) Road Traffic Act (Cap 276) (“third charge [Re-Amended]” -DAC43589/2009) and a charge of using motor car SJP 7549 K whilst there was not in force the requisite policy of insurance or security in respect of third party risks under Section 3(1) Motor Vehicle (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189)(“fourth charge [Re-mended]” - DAC43590/2009). Two other charges, namely another charge under Section 81(3) Road Traffic Act (“first charge [Re-Amended]” – DAC43587/2009 and a charge of taking and driving away a vehicle without the consent of the owner under Section 96(1) Road Traffic Act (“fifth charge [Re-Amended]” – DAC43591/2009) were taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing.
Summary of Facts
The Statement of Facts (“Exhibit P1A”) which the Accused had agreed to without any qualification reads as follows: Introduction/Involved Parties The complainant is Liow Mui Yuen Angeline (“A1”). At the material time, A1 was a police officer holding the rank of Sergeant attached to Bukit Merah East Neighbourhood Police Centre (“ the NPC ”). 2. The witness is Chua Wee Lian William (“A2”). At the material time, A2 was a police officer holding the rank of Sergeant similarly attached to the NPC. The second witness is Ng Su Yi Sophia (“A3”). A3 is the sister of the accused. The accused is Ng Suzanne, female/27 years old bearing NRIC No: SXXXX326D. Facts Relating to the Charges Investigations revealed that on 22 May 2009, at about 2.15 a.m., A1 and A2 were in the process of setting up a road block along Republic Boulevard, Singapore when they spotted a silver BMW motor car bearing registration number SJP7549K (“the car”) stopping by the road side about 100 meters before approaching the road block. Suspecting that something was amiss, A2 approached the car to conduct a check. Upon seeing A2 approach the car, the accused started to drive the car forward but stopped after A2 signalled her to stop. When the car came to a stop, A2 approached the driver’s side of the vehicle, at which the accused was seated. A3 was also seated in the rear passenger seat of the car at this point in time. A2 then informed the accused, who was the driver of the car, to switch off the vehicle engine and alight from the car. A2 proceeded to ask for the accused’s particulars. The accused replied that she did not have any photo identification with her and proceeded to provide her particulars verbally at A2’s request. The accused identified herself as one Chung Kin Jee bearing NRIC No: SXXXX342Z. A2 screened the particulars initially provided by the Accused and was informed that the said Chung Kin Jee did indeed possess a valid Class 3 driving licence. However, A2 became suspicious as the particulars provided appeared to be that of a person older than the accused, who looked young. A2 requested for the accused person’s age and she informed him that she was 30 years old. A2 was not convinced and requested the accused to provide him with any other form of written identification. The accused took out all her credit cards which did not bear her photograph. A2 noticed that all the credit cards bore a name with the surname “Ng” and questioned the accused as to why the surname on the credit cards differed from the name she had verbally provided earlier. The accused simply replied, “It is so.” The witness then requested for A1 to question the accused on her identification. A1 proceeded to question the accused on her identity and the accused again identified herself as one Chuang Kin Jee bearing NIC No: SXXXX342Z. When queried by A1 again, the accused confirmed the said identification particulars. A1 decided to screen the actual age of Chuang Kin Jee and was informed that Chuang Kin Jee was 52 years old at the material time. After verifying the actual age of Chuang Kin Jee, A1 again questioned the accused on her particulars and identity. At this juncture, the accused revealed that she was Ng Suzanne bearing NRIC No:SXXXX326D. A1 proceeded to screen the newly provided particulars, and the screening results revealed that the accused had been disqualified from driving all classes of vehicle for a period of 30 months with effect from 18 March 2009 until 17 September 2011. When queried by A2 as to why she had driven whilst under disqualification, the accused did not provide any reason and also stopped A3 from doing the same before they had a chance to consult a lawyer. A1 subsequently placed the accused under arrest for driving whilst under disqualification. In the course of investigations which followed the arrest, it was confirmed that the accused was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for all classes of vehicles for a period of 30 months with effect from 18 March 2009 until 17 September 2011. As the accused did not possess a valid licence at the material time and had in fact been driving whilst under disqualification, no insurance policy or security in respect of third-party risks complying with the requirements of the Motor Vehicle (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act, Chapter 189 (“ the MVA ”), was in force. Investigations also revealed that the accused had willfully furnished misleading information on her personal particulars and identity by providing her name as Chuang Kin Jee and her NRIC number as SXXXX334Z. The accused was fully aware that she was disqualified from driving all classes of vehicles at the material time. The accused has therefore committed the following offences: Willfully furnishing misleading information to A1 under s81(3) punishable under s81(7) of the Road Traffic Act, Chapter 276 (“ the RTA ”) Driving a motor vehicle whilst disqualified from driving all classes of vehicles under s43(4) of the RTA; Using vehicle a motor vehicle valid insurance coverage or similar security under s3(1) punishable under 3(2) and s3(3) of the MVA. The accused stands charged accordingly.
Antecedents
The Accused has a previous antecedent on 18th March 2009 for an offence of drink driving under Section 67(1)(b) Road Traffic Act, Chapter 276. She was fined $3,600 and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for all classes of vehicle for 30 months in Court 21.
Mitigation
In her written plea in mitigation, her Counsel urged the Court to consider the mitigating factors, in particular her psychiatric condition and the circumstances of the case with a view of departing from the usual sentence of an imprisonment for cases of driving whilst under disqualification. It was strongly submitted that the causal link between the Accused’s commission of the offences and her psychiatric condition would provide justification for the Court calling for a pre-sentence report. It was submitted that an appropriate sentencing option is to place the Accused on probation so that concerted efforts can be made for her treatment and rehabilitation.
Her Counsel further submitted that in the alternative, the Court would be justified by the circumstances of the case in imposing an appropriate fine and consequential order of an extended disqualification. He then went on to set out the circumstances leading to the commission of the offences. He highlighted that the Accused’s sister, Sophia, had consulted and was examined by a doctor of the Central Clinic & Surgery (Marine Parade) who had treated her.
Her Counsel submitted that the Accused was not justifying nor making excuses for her flawed decision which was ‘made on impulse in a moment of desperation’. He further submitted that to the Accused, this was a genuine emergency and as stated in her psychiatrist’s reports, her psychiatric condition contributed to her clouded judgment to respond to the desperate help of her sister. According to her Counsel, the Accused has not driven since her disqualification, save for this one occasion which is the subject of the charge of driving whilst under disqualification. He submitted that she is regretful and remorseful and has learnt a painful lesson not to drive again under disqualification under ant circumstances.
Willfully furnishing misleading information to a police officer
Her Counsel submitted that in her flustered state, first by her sister’s condition and then by being stopped by the police, the Accused panicked upon being questioned by the police officers, whereupon she mentioned the name of her mother, the owner of the vehicle. He further submitted that there is no question that she did at the scene very soon subsequently provided her name, identity card number, address and details of her disqualified driving licence to the police officer.
Driving whilst under disqualification
Her Counsel submitted that as can be seen from the circumstances, she was compelled to drive by her sister’s cries for urgent help and help to pick her up. The Accused’s reaction to her initial call for help was that she took a taxi or to call for an ambulance. When she refused, the Accused again did not go ahead to violate the disqualification order. She told her sister that she would try and get someone to pick her up, but this was to no avail. Counsel submitted that unfortunately, her sister’s persistent calls left her with no choice leading her to grab the car key of her mother’s car to drive to pick her sister up, out of sheer panic and fear of her sister’s condition. He emphasized that in the Accused’s mind, this was a case of an emergency and it is clear that she would not have driven the car if not for her sister’s frantic cries for help. He submitted that it was a relatively short drive...
