Public Prosecutor v Tan Phui Moi

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Edgar Foo
• Judgment Date: 08 September 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] SGDC 193
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: TP Charge No. 181019839111-1, Magistrate’s Appeal No. 9137-2021-01
• Published date: 16 September 2021
• Year: 2021
• Hearing Date: 30 December 2020,17 December 2020,09 March 2021,10 June 2021,02 October 2020,10 March 2021
• Plaintiff Counsel: ASP Vimala Raj s/o P Criminal Investigation Department (acting on behalf of the Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Accused in person
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Statutory Offences,Road Traffic Act,Section 65(a),Evidence,Proof of evidence,Onus of Proof,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing,Principles
• Citation: [2021] SGDC 193

District Judge Edgar Foo: Introduction/Background

Mdm Tan Phui Moi (“the Accused”), a 54-year-old female Chinese Singapore Citizen had claimed trial to the following charge:

Charge No – 181019839111-1 (Amended)

You … are charged that on 6 September 2018 at or about 12.30 p.m., at the signalized cross junction of Eunos Link and Kaki Bukit Avenue 1, Singapore, did ride motorcycle bearing registration number FBJ6004Z, in a manner without due care and attention, to wit, by failing to keep a proper lookout for oncoming vehicles approaching from your left (along Eunos Link towards Bedok Reservoir Road), while performing a discretionary right turn from Eunos Link into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1, on a traffic green light signal (without right turn green arrow), thus resulting in a collision with motor car bearing registration number SLS9335H, which was proceeding straight from your left along Eunos Link on green light signal in favour of the said motor car, which had the right of way, thus you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 65(a) of the Road Traffic Act, Chapter 276.

The punishment prescribed under section 65(a) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276) was a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both. Section 42 of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276) also stipulated that the court before which a person was convicted of any offence in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle may order that person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for life or for such period as the court may think fit.

At the conclusion of the trial on 10 June 2021. I found the Accused guilty and I convicted her of the said charge. After hearing the Prosecution’s submission on sentence and the Accused’s mitigation plea, I imposed a fine of $800 and I also ordered that the Accused be disqualified from driving all classes of vehicles for a period of 4 months.

The Accused, being dissatisfied with my decision, had filed her Notice of Appeal against the conviction and sentence. I hereby set out my reasons for my conviction and sentence.

Parties’ evidence and exhibits Prosecution’s evidence and exhibits

The Prosecution had called a total of 7 witnesses in their case against the Accused:

No.	Witness	Role	Marking given to witness
1	SGT (3) Muhammad Masri Bin Mohd Yusof	Patrol Officer from Traffic Police who had responded the accident	PW1
2	SGT (2) Muhammad Sulaiman Bin Ramli	Patrol Officer from Traffic Police who had responded to the accident	PW2
3	Liew Ka Song	Witness	PW3
4	Ho Koon Ngam	Victim (driver of SLS 9335 H)	PW4
5	Ong Siok Bee	Victim (pillion rider of FBJ 6004 Z)	PW5
6	SSGT Muhammad Rizwan Bin Kamaludin	Investigation Officer from Traffic Police	PW6
7	Wong Miao’En Grace	Senior Forensic Scientist from Health Sciences Authority	PW7

In addition to the 7 witnesses, the Prosecution had also tendered a total of 23 exhibits in support of their case against the Accused:

No.	Description of Exhibit	Marking given to exhibit
1	First Information Report – G/20180906/0097	P1
2	Sketch Plan of Accident Scene – Junction of Kaki Bukit Ave 1 and Eunos Link	P2
3	Vehicle Damage Report – SLS 9335 H	P3
4	Vehicle Damage Report – FBJ 6004 Z	P4
5	NP 323 – Acknowledgement Slip for SD card (PW4)	P5
6	NP 323 – Acknowledgement Slip for SD Card (PW3)	P6
7	PW2 First Police Officer’s Accident Report [Form A]	P7
8	PW2’s Patrol Log Sheet	P8
9	In-Car Camera Footage from PW3’s vehicle [File Name: 2018_09_06_13_12_00]	P9
10	In-Car Camera Footage from PW4’s vehicle (SLS 9335 H) [File Name: 21420061]	P10
11	PW4’s Report of Traffic Accident – T/20180906/2112	P11
12	Medical Report of PW4	P12
13	Vehicle Registration Details of SLS 335 H	P13
14	Photograph from PW4’s handphone [File Name: 2020-12-17-12-12-17 (1)]	P14
15	Photograph from PW4’s handphone [File Name: 2020-12-17-12-12-17]	P15
16	Video from PW4’s handphone [File Name: 2020-12-17-12-10-46.mp4]	P16
17	Video from PW4’s handphone [File Name: 2020-12-17-12-11-19.mp4]	P17
18	Video from PW4’s handphone [File Name: 2020-12-17-12-11-41.mp4]	P18
19	Video from PW4’s handphone [File Name: 2020-12-17-12-11-56.mp4]	P19
20	Medical Report of PW5	P20
21	LTA Junction - Eye Camera Footage	P21
22	Medical Certificate of Accused	P22
23	PW7’s Health Sciences Authority Report – LAB No. FC-2041-00192-A	P23
24	Report of a Traffic Accident – NP 401	P24

In the present case, it was clear from the evidence that there was a traffic accident at the signalized cross junction of Eunos Link and Kaki Bukit Avenue 1 between the motorcycle FBJ 6004 Z (“the Accused’s motorcycle”) which was ridden by the Accused and the motor car SLS 9335 H (“PW4’s car”) which was driven by PW4 . At the time of the accident, the Accused also had PW5 who was riding pillion on her motorcycle.

The Prosecution’s evidence could be summarised as follows: -

PW1 – SGT (3) Muhammad Masri Bin Mohd Yusof

PW1 was a patrol officer with the Traffic Police. On 6 September 2018, PW1 was on 2-wheeler duty with PW2 and they were patrolling the eastern side of Singapore when they received the First Information Report (Exhibit P1) on the accident and they were despatched to the accident site¹. I noted that Exhibit P1 was a 999 call and the time and date of the call was 12.33 pm on 6 September 2018².

When PW1 and PW2 arrived at the accident site, they saw A’s motorcycle and PW4’s car. PW1 then went on the prepare the sketch plan of the accident site (Exhibit P2) and he also put up the Damage Report to PW4’s car (Exhibit P3) and the Damage Report to the Accused’s motorcycle³.

As for PW4’s car, PW1 noted that the front of the car was crumpled and cracked, and the windscreen was also broken⁴. As for the Accused’s motorcycle, PW1 noted that the front tyre of the motorcycle was twisted, the back-number plate was dented, the motorcycle seat was detached, and the exhaust pipe was also detached⁵.

PW2 – SGT (2) Muhammad Sulaiman Bin Ramli

PW2 was PW1’s partner on the date of the accident. When he arrived at the accident site with PW1, PW1 asked him to check on the casualties⁶. PW2 saw 3 ambulances at the accident site. There were 3 ambulances for 3 injured parties: the Accused, PW5 and PW4. PW2 said that all 3 of them were injured but they were not suffering from life-threatening injuries⁷.

PW2 went to one ambulance and spoke to PW5. PW2 managed to obtain PW5’s particulars from PW5. PW2 then went to speak to the Accused who was being attended to by a medic from another ambulance, The Accused told PW2 that she could not remember what had happened during the accident⁸.

After PW2 had spoken to both the Accused and PW5, he did some on-site investigation and he also spoke to PW3 who had witnessed the accident. PW3 was driving his tow-truck and he was stationary on the 3rd lane at the traffic light junction along Ubi Avenue 2 when he witnessed the accident⁹.

PW3 told PW2 that he saw PW4’s car driving from his left to his right when the Accused’s motorcycle suddenly cut across the junction from Eunos Link to turn into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1. When the Accused was in the midst of making a right turn, PW4’s car hit into the Accused’s motorcycle¹⁰.

PW2 also testified that other than PW3, there was another witness by the name of Taloy Joel¹¹. PW2 said that a passer-by had given him Taloy Joel’s particulars and the passer-by had told PW2 that Taloy Joel had witnessed the accident. Taloy Joey was no longer present when PW2 arrived at the accident site¹². PW2 also did not obtain the passer-by’s name and contact particulars¹³.

After speaking to PW3, PW2 went on the seize the SD cards from the in-car cameras of PW4’s car and PW3’s tow-truck¹⁴. PW2 also went on to brief his ops room and he also obtained the investigation officer’s (PW6’s) particulars from the ops rooms¹⁵. PW2 then went on the brief PW6 of the accident¹⁶. PW6 told PW2 to screen the 2 vehicles and to hand the 2 SD cards to him which PW2 subsequently did¹⁷. PW2 also proceeded to file his First Police Officer’s Accident Report (Exhibit P7) on the said accident¹⁸.

PW2 also spoke to PW4 at the scene of the accident and PW4 told PW2 that he was driving straight when the Accused’s motorcycle suddenly made a right turn and he could not brake in time and he hit into the Accused’s motorcycle¹⁹. PW4 also told PW2 that the traffic light was green in his favour before the collision and that was why he proceeded to cross the traffic junction²⁰.

PW2 also testified that he had logged down all the events on 6 September 2018 into his patrol log sheet (Exhibit P8)²¹. I also noted the following relevant entries in Exhibit P8:

S/No	Event	Time	Description
41	10-7 #G97 IO Rizwan Ext 6185	1300	At scene, case confirmed. Major road traffic accident involving 1 motorcar and 1 motorcycle, exact location, Eunos Link x Kaki Bukit Ave 1 lane 5. PL211 at scene, V1 and V2 at scene, in the midst of conveyance V1 – FBJ 6004Z – Honda/red/2A S1767128F Tan Phui Moi QDL-2b, 2a, 3 HP - Injuries: Abrasion, upper and lower body, conveyed conscious by AB 211, Sgt Joel to CGH V2 – SLS 9335H Lotus/yellow/car Ho Koon Ngam QDL:2b, 3 HP: Injuries: no visible injuries, conveyed conscious by PA 212 I/C Syimah to CGH V1’s pillion: Ong Siok Bee HP: Injuries: left leg abrasion, right reel and left abdomen laceration, conveyed conscious by AB 223 I/C Bertram
42	Facts	--	Upon

...