Public Prosecutor v Wong Kee Kong

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Shawn Ho
• Judgment Date: 27 May 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] SGDC 127
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 15 May 2015
• Docket Number: LTA 635/2013, M.A. No. 081/2015/01
• Plaintiff Counsel: LTA Prosecutor Lua Bee Hin
• Defendant Counsel: Accused in person.
• Published date: 12 June 2015

District Judge Shawn Ho: INTRODUCTION

Expressways and roads are the arteries and capillaries of our transport system. Singapore has an extensive network of roads spanning 3452 kilometres.¹ More disturbingly, there were 7,791 injury accidents and 149 fatal accidents on our roads in 2014.² These statistics do not convey the bone-numbing grief and anguish experienced by those mourning the loss of loved ones to traffic accidents. Worse, the distress of the victim’s family is exacerbated if the vehicles in question had no policy of insurance for third party risks. Consequently, third party motor insurance is of first importance.

In the present case, the Accused drove a taxi without third party motor insurance, committing an offence under section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks & Compensation) Act. He was fined $500 in default 2 days’ imprisonment, and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving license for all vehicle classes for 12 months from the conviction date. The Accused has lodged a Notice of Appeal against his sentence.

My grounds of decision are based on the following analytical framework: What is the policy behind the interpretation of section 3 of the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act? (“Policy behind Interpreting Section 3”) What are the special reasons for not imposing a driving disqualification? (“Law on Special Reasons”) Were there any special reasons in the present case? (“Special Reasons on the Facts”)

Charge

The charge was as follows:

NAME:	WONG KEE KONG
SEX/ AGE:	MALE/ 60 YEARS OLD
NATIONALITY:	SINGAPORE CITIZEN

are charged that you, on 1 April 2013 at about 11.15pm along Still Road, did use the said motor vehicle when there was not in force in relation to the user of the said vehicle such a policy of insurance in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirement of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks & Compensation) Act, Chapter 189 and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 3(1) and punishable under Section 3(2) of the said Act, Chapter 189.

Statement of Facts

The Statement of Facts which the Accused agreed to without qualification was as follows:

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The complainant is one Mr Yeo Ying Xuan, the Senior Enforcement Officer attached to the Land Transport Authority. 2. The Defendant is one Mr Wong Kee Kong, a 60 years old male. He was the driver of motor taxi, SHC 4438J, on 1 April 2013 at about 11.15pm. 3. On 1 April 2013 at about 11.15pm, the complainant was conducting enforcement checks along Still Road. The complainant instructed the defendant who was driving the motor taxi, SHC4438J, to stop along Still Road to make a check on the defendant’s vocational licence and driving licence. Subsequently, LTA Officers, Mr Lee Boon Pah and Mr Dave Wong who were near the area arrived and approached the defendant. Mr Lee Boon Pah screened the driver’s identity card and the screening result showed that the defendant did not hold a valid taxi driver’s vocational license. 4. Investigations revealed the following: a) The motor taxi, SHC4438J, is registered under SMRT Taxis Pte Ltd. b) The defendant’s taxi driver’s vocational licence had expired on 25 January 2013. c) The defendant was a registered taxi hirer of SMRT Taxis Pte Ltd. d) The defendant did not possess any valid taxi driver’s vocational licence issued by the Registrar of Vehicles to drive the motor taxi, SHC4438J, during the material date and time. e) The motor taxi, SHC4438J, was issued with First Capital Insurance Limited from 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014. However, it does not cover the defendant on 1 April 2013 as he was not authorised to drive this said motor taxi. Hence, there was not in force in relation to the user of the said motor taxi, a policy of insurance in respect of the third party risks as complies with the requirements of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act, Chapter 189. 5. The defendant, Mr Wong Kee Kong had: • Driven a motor taxi without a valid taxi driver’s vocational licence under Section 110(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act, Chapter 276; and • Used a motor vehicle without insurance coverage under Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act, Chapter 189. SENTENCING Antecedents

The Accused had no prior antecedents.

Prosecution’s Submissions on Sentence

The prosecution did not submit on sentence.

Defence’s Mitigation

The Accused had nothing to say in mitigation.

Prescribed Punishment for the Offence

The prescribed punishment for section 3 of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks & Compensation) Act (“the Act”) is a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to both. A person convicted of an offence under this section 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 for holding or obtaining a driving licence under the Road Traffic Act for 12 months from the conviction date.

Policy behind Interpreting Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act

What is the policy behind the interpretation of section 3 of the Act? Essentially, section 3 seeks to achieve the dual aims of ensuring that victims of traffic accidents are not left without any compensation, and also to deter irresponsible motorists from driving without the appropriate insurance coverage: Er Kee Jeng v PP [2006] 2 SLR(R) 485 at [39].

As stated in its preamble, the Act was enacted to “provide against third-party risks arising out of the use of motor vehicles and for the payment of compensation in respect of death or bodily injury arising out of the use of motor vehicles and for matters incidental thereto”. The raison d'etre of the Act is to protect third-party road users, not the insured driver: PP v Lee Hong Hwee [2004] 1 SLR(R) 39 at [31].

In other words, section 3(1) seeks to ensure that compensation would be available to persons involved in accidents on the road. For that reason, contravening section 3(1) is a serious offence (Stewart Ashley James v PP [1996] 3 SLR(R) 106 at [17]) and Parliament has deemed it fit to make the offence one of strict liability with only a limited defence in section 3(4): Muhammad Faizal bin Rahim v PP [2012] 1 SLR 116 at [39]. The seriousness of the offence is also reflected in a possible custodial sentence and a mandatory 12-month disqualification order that avail the judge in sentencing the offender: Muhammad Faizal bin Rahim v PP at [40].

At this juncture, I pause to observe that the gravity of using a motor vehicle without insurance is underscored by the fact that imprisonment was obligatory for such offences in England in the past: Wilkinson’s Road Traffic Offences³ (23rd Edition, Volume 1) at [21.12]:

“Prior to 1965, disqualification or at one time, imprisonment was obligatory for using a motor vehicle without insurance, or causing or permitting such use”.

The policy behind the mandatory 12-month disqualification order is deterrence: Muhammad Faizal bin Rahim v PP at [40]. This is because a 12-month disqualification order would mean that for the entire year in which the order is in effect, the offender is reminded every day of his offence and the unwarranted risks in which he had placed ordinary members of the public: Sivakumar s/o Rajoo v PP [2002] 1 SLR(R) 265 at [28]. As aptly stated by Chief Justice Thomson in Public Prosecutor v Mohd Isa [1963] MLJ 135, the most satisfactory penalty for most motoring offences is disqualification because a fine is paid once and then forgotten.

It would be repugnant to the legislative intention of the Act if motorists do not face the criminal...