Public Prosecutor v Wong Choon Yong

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Edgar Foo
• Judgment Date: 22 September 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] SGDC 209
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Arrest Case No. 901382 of 2019 and 1 Other, Magistrate’s Appeal No. 9145-2021-01
• Published date: 29 September 2021
• Year: 2021
• Hearing Date: 30 April 2021,18 February 2020,17 February 2020,23 June 2021,01 September 2020,01 February 2021,02 September 2020
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPP Phoebe Tan (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Wee Hong Shern (Ong & Co LLC)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Offences,Grievous hurt,Road traffic Act,Section 63(4), section 67(1)(b) and section 122,Evidence,Proof of evidence,Onus of Proof,Witnesses,Witnesses' credibility,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing,Principles
• Citation: [2021] SGDC 209

District Judge Edgar Foo: Introduction

Mr Wong Choon Yong (“the Accused”), a 37-year-old male Chinese Singapore Citizen faced a total of 2 charges:

5th charge - DAC 901382-2019 (Amended)

You … are charged that you, on 9th August 2018, at or about 3.20 am, along the Kampong Java Tunnel in the Central Expressway (CTE) towards Ayer Rajah Expressway (AYE), Singapore, did drive the motor car bearing registration plate number SKN3003T at a speed of 135 kph, a speed exceeding (by 51-60 kph) the speed limit of 80 kph imposed on the road in question, and you have thereby committed an offence under s 63(4) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) (“RTA”),

and further, that you, before the commission of the above offence, were on 16 September 2015 in State Court No. 21 vide 156117782911 convicted of driving without reasonable consideration under s 65(b) of the RTA, and were sentenced to a fine of $600.00, which conviction and sentence have not been set aside to date, and you are thereby liable for enhanced punishment under s 131(2)(b) of the RTA.

6th charge - MAC 900626-2019 (Amended)

You … are charged that you, on 9th August 2018, at or about 3.20 am, along Central Expressway (CTE) towards Ayer Rajah Expressway (AYE) slip road into Buyong Road, Singapore, being the driver of the motor car bearing registration plate number SKN3003T, did cause grievous hurt to one Staff Sergeant Amir Muhammad Bin Abdul Hamid (the “victim”), who was the rider of police motorcycle TP1077B, by doing an act so negligently as to endanger human life, to wit, by applying hard braking despite the presence of the victim close behind you, causing the victim to also apply hard braking to avoid your motor car, thereby causing the victim to skid, fall off his motorcycle and sustain a distal radius fracture, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 338(b) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed).

The Accused had claimed trial to both the charges. At the conclusion of the trial after 5 days of hearing, I found the Accused guilty of both the charges and I convicted him of both the charges on 30 April 2021. I had also adjourned the both matters to 23 June 2021 for the Prosecution to address me on sentence and for the Accused to prepare his mitigation plea.

On 23 June 2021, after hearing the Prosecution’s address on sentence and the Defence’s mitigation plea, I imposed the following sentences on the Accused: -

S/N	Charge No.	Sentence
1	DAC 901382-2019	Fine of $1,500 default 7 days’ imprisonment
2	MAC 900626-2019	3 weeks’ imprisonment and DQAC 18 months from the date of the Accused’s release from prison.
Total sentence	3 weeks’ imprisonment and DQAC of 18 months to take effect from the date of the Accused’s release from prison and a fine of $1,500 in default 7 days’ imprisonment

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

Parties’ evidence and exhibits Prosecution’s evidence and exhibits

The Prosecution had called a total of 6 witnesses in their case against the Accused:

No.	Witness	Role	Marking given to witness
1	SSSGT Amir Muhammad bin Abdul Hamid	Witness and victim in MAC 900626-2019	PW1
2	SSSGT Seet Ming Huai Sebastian	Witness	PW2
3	SSSGT Rafael Tan Soon Peng	Witness	PW3
4	SI Muhammad Suryadi	Witness	PW4
5	SI Jackson Mu Wei Jun	Investigating officer	PW5
6	SI Nor Affendi bin Jaffar	Rebuttal witness	PW6

In addition to the 6 witnesses, the Prosecution had also tendered a total of 12 sets of exhibits in support of their case against the Accused:

No.	Exhibit	Exhibit Marking
1	CD-ROM containing footage from TP 1077B taken on 9 August 2018	P1
2	CD-ROM containing footage from the front camera of QX 889A taken on 9 August 2018	P2
3	CD-ROM containing footage from the rear camera of QX 889A taken on 9 August 2018	P3
4	Medical Report on PW1 bearing reference 2018-14554-0	P4.1-5
5	First Information Report (Ref: E/20180809/0049)	P5
6	Google Map printout (3 pages)	P6
7	NP 299 (Report no. T/20180809/2018)	P7
8	Accused’s breath test result administered on 9 August 2018 from 4.49 am	P8
9	CRO Record pertaining to the Accused	P9
10	Specialist medical report on PW1 (Ref: POLICE S8528437A)	P10
11	Accused’s statement recorded by PW5 on 9 August 2018	P11A
12	Transcript of Accused’s statement recorded by the PW5 on 9 August 2018	P11B
12	Accused’s charges relating to drink driving and failure to stop when ordered by a policeman in uniform drafted by PW5	P12

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

PW1 – SSSGT Amir Muhammad bin Abdul Hamid

PW1 was a police officer with Traffic Police division and he had been working at the Traffic Police division for 10 years when he testified in court. On the 9th of August 2018 at about 3.20 am, PW1 was on duty together with PW2, PW3 and PW4 and they were travelling along CTE towards AYE¹. PW1 was riding a police motorcycle bearing registration number TP 1077B which had police logo and markings and was equipped with violet lights and red blinkers². PW2 was also riding a police motorcycle which had similar markings and fittings³. PW3 and PW4 were in a Traffic Police patrol car which had police markings and fitted with blinkers⁴. PW3 and PW4 were dressed in their blue police uniform while PW1 and PW2 were wearing the Traffic Police riding jackets which was grey and white in colour with reflective white strips⁵.

While the group were travelling along the CTE before the Bukit Timah exit, they came across a white Audi car which was travelling much faster than the other vehicles that were travelling along the CTE⁶.

When PW1 first spotted the white Audi car, the white Audi car was travelling on the second from the right of 4 lanes⁷. PW1’s motorcycle was installed with an in-vehicle camera and he was able to capture the white Audi car from his motorcycle⁸. The Prosecution also tendered a footage from PW1’s in-vehicle camera (Exhibit P1)⁹. Other than Exhibit P1, the Prosecution also tendered 2 additional footages, one from the front camera of QX 889A (Exhibit P2) which was driven in PW3 and another from the rear camera of QX 889A (Exhibit P3).

PW1 testified that he was travelling behind the police patrol car which was driven by PW3 when he spotted the white Audi car which was in front of a red taxi which was travelling on lane 2 of the CTE¹⁰. The white Audi car then tried to switch to the 1st lane and overtook a yellow taxi on the right lane¹¹. PW1 also testified that the white Audi car was travelling faster than both the taxis¹².

PW3 who was driving the patrol car then decided to trail the white Audi car¹³. PW1 also tried to trail the white Audi car and he proceeded to follow the white Audi car and to “lock” the speed of the white Audi car¹⁴. PW1 explained that his police motorcycle was equipped with a digital speedometer and in order to determine the speed the white Audi was travelling, he had to follow the white Audi car at the same speed that the white Audi car was travelling for a certain distance before using a switch on the handle of his motorcycle to freeze or lock his digital speedometer and thereby capturing the speed of the white Audi car¹⁵. PW1 testified that when he had managed to “lock” the speed of the white Audi car on his digital speedometer, the blue pilot light at the front of his police motorcycle was automatically switched on¹⁶. When PW1 was trailing the white Audi car, he did not check his speed because he was concentrating on the white Audi car in order to maintain a constant distance between them¹⁷. PW1 testified that he had locked the speed of the white Audi car at 135 km/h when the white Audi car was inside the Kampong Java tunnel¹⁸.

PW1 testified that in order to ensure that both his police motorcycle and the white Audi car were travelling at the same speed, PW1 needed to maintain a constant distance between the 2 vehicles before locking the speed on his digital speedometer. PW1 also explained that his motorcycle was fitted with a high plastic clear windscreen and he would use the windscreen as a guide and keep the violating vehicle within the windscreen and he would follow the vehicle for 400 to 500 metres before he locked his digital speedometer to capture the speed of the vehicle¹⁹. PW1 was also able to determine how far he had travelled by glancing at his odometer while trailing the vehicle²⁰. PW1 also clarified that there was a Singapore Police Force logo on his windscreen which was connected to the body kit of his motorcycle and he was using the logo and the size of the rear of the white Audi car to help him maintain a constant distance between himself and the white Audi car²¹.

PW1 also testified that when the white Audi car was in Kampong Java tunnel, PW3 who was driving the patrol car, was just behind the white Audi car. When PW3 switched on the blinkers of his patrol car, the white Audi car did apply his brakes to slow down. However, the white Audi car did not stop, and it proceeded to travel along the Kampong Java tunnel²².

PW1 then caught up with the white Audi car on the left and he signalled to the driver to pull the car over to the left side of the road. PW1 sounded his horn twice before he made eye to eye contact with the driver. PW1 then signalled to the driver by pointing his hand at the driver and moving his hand to the left side to tell the driver to pull over to the left side of the road²³. PW1 testified that after he had made eye to eye contact with the...