Public Prosecutor v Syed Amir Bin Syed Ali

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Ronald Gwee Tiong Kee
• Judgment Date: 31 August 2006
• Neutral Citation: [2006] SGDC 190
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2006
• Published date: 21 September 2006
• Plaintiff Counsel: SSI Majeed (TP)
• Defendant Counsel: Accused in person
• Citation: [2006] SGDC 190

31 August 2006

District Judge Ronald Gwee

1. The accused, Syed Amir Bin Syed Ali (the “Accused”), faced 2 charges, for offences both allegedly committed on the same date and at the same time. The 2 charges involved the riding of 2 motorcycles. The Accused had ridden motorcycle FT 2918M (“FT”) and had permitted one Syed Thaha Ahmad Bin Syed Ali (“Syed Thaha Ahmad”) to ride motorcycle FX 6050T (“FX”). The problem arose for the Accused as he was not covered by the requisite insurance coverage (to comply with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation Act [“MVA”]) to ride FT, and he had permitted Syed Thaha Ahmad to ride FX when Syed Thaha Ahmad was not covered by the requisite insurance coverage (to comply with the MVA) to ride FX.

2. The Accused pleaded guilty to both charges. Two sets of Statements of Facts (“SOF”) were read to the Accused (one in respect of the offence for each of the 2 motorcycles). The Accused admitted to the 2 sets of SOF without any qualification whatsoever. The Accused and Syed Thaha Ahmad were each covered by the requisite insurance coverage for the motorcycle that each was not riding and had each permitted the other to ride the motorcycle for which each of them was not so covered.

3. I convicted the Accused on both charges, on his plea of guilt. The Prosecution submitted that the Accused had no antecedents. The Accused tendered a plea in mitigation that had been written by his father. This written plea makes reference to a supposedly attached “appeal letter” sent to the Traffic Police. This “appeal letter” was not tendered to court on the date the Accused pleaded guilty. Not much by way of mitigation is offered in the written plea, save to say that the father of the Accused characterized the incident as an “unfortunate” one in which it was said, the Accused had no intention to “violate the law”.

4. The maximum punishment for each of the 2 charges in respect of the contravention of the MVA, is a fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months, or both. Further, section 3(3) of the MVA provides that a person convicted of such an offence “shall (unless the court for special reasons thinks fit to order otherwise and without prejudice to the power of the court to order a longer period of disqualification) be disqualified” from “holding or obtaining a driving licence under the Road Traffic Act (Cap. 276) (“RTA”) for a period of 12 months from the date of the conviction”. I shall return later to the issue of the disqualification period meted out against the Accused as this merits separate treatment. In respect of the fines to be imposed for the 2...