Public Prosecutor v Teo Poh Leng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: MPH Rubin JC
• Judgment Date: 26 September 1991
• Neutral Citation: [1991] SGHC 137
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 125/91/01
• Date: 26 September 1991
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1991
• Plaintiff Counsel: Lee Sing Lit (Deputy Senior State Counsel)
• Citation: [1991] SGHC 137
• Defendant Counsel: Hee Theng Fong and Cynthia Chee (Hee Theng Fong & Co)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Fine and disqualification from driving,Whether sentence manifestly inadequate,Distinction between rashness and negligence,Offences,Causing death by rash or negligent act,Whether custodial sentence necessary,Culpable homicide,Causing death by negligent act,s 304A Penal Code (Cap 224),Principles,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing

Cur Adv Vult

The respondent was charged for an offence under s 304A of the Penal Code (Cap 224) (`the Code`) as follows:

You, Teo Poh Leng NRIC No: 1624251/I are charged that you, on or about 3 March 1991, at about 8.55am along Delta Road, Singapore, did cause the death of Ho Kwong Fai and Ho Kuen Ho not amounting to culpable homicide by doing a negligent act, by failing to exercise proper control of motor car No SBE 7270 R, causing it to skid and lose control when negotiating a bend, resulting in a collision with the said two deceased, who were then walking on the road pavement, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 304A of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

She pleaded guilty to the charge promptly and was sentenced to a fine of $5,000 and was disqualified from driving all classes of vehicles for five years. The public prosecutor now appeals on the ground that the sentences imposed are manifestly inadequate and urges the court to impose a custodial sentence on her.

The material facts concerning this offence appears at para 5 of the statement of facts produced to the court when the respondent pleaded guilty at the subordinate courts and it reads as follows:

As she was negotiating a left hand bend before the junction of Delta Road and Delta Avenue, accused lost control of her vehicle which veered to the left side and careened out of control. The said vehicle hit the left side road kerb and cut diagonally across Delta Avenue. It mounted the road pavement of Delta Avenue, and hit the two deceased and Ho Kuen Hoe, who were walking on the road pavement. The impact caused them to be flung up into the air before landing on the ground.

From the facts and the charge brought against her, it appears that the prosecution chose to proceed on the second limb of s 304A of the Code alleging that the respondent did a negligent act. The distinction between rashness and negligence is identified in a number of cases. There are two definitions of these terms which are generally accepted as correct. In Nidamarti `s case,1 at p 120, Holloway J said:

Culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that the mischievous and illegal consequences may follow, but with the hope that they will not, and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precaution to prevent their happening. The imputability arises from acting despite the consciousness (luxuria). Culpable negligence is acting without the consciousness

...