Sankar Jayakumar v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 02 July 2010
• Neutral Citation: [2010] SGHC 190
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Magistrate’s Appeal No 343 of 2009
• Published date: 07 July 2010
• Year: 2010
• Hearing Date: 14 May 2010,21 May 2010
• Plaintiff Counsel: N. Sreenivasan and Shankar A. S. (Straits Law Practice LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Han Ming Kuang (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law
• Citation: [2010] SGHC 190

Choo Han Teck J:

The appellant, a 42-year old man drove his car SFJ 5953 T into a traffic controlled junction at Yishun Street 72 and Yishun Ring Road at 6.45am on 13 February 2008. In so doing his car collided against a motorcycle ridden by a 19-year old Ng Yaoming. Ng died as a result of the collision. His 20-year old pillion rider, Wong Wei Xia was injured. The appellant was charged under s 66(1) of the Road Traffic Act, (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) for driving in a manner dangerous to the public. He was also charged under s 338 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) for causing grievous hurt to the pillion rider

The main issue at trial was whether the appellant drove into the junction when the traffic light had already turned red against him. The prosecution adduced evidence from Wong Wei Xia as well as two independent witnesses, Neo Che Kok (“Neo”) and Haji Roslan bin Kasin (“Haji Roslan”). Neo testified that he had stopped at the junction in the same direction as the motorcycle. When he saw that the light changed to green in his favour he engaged the gears of his truck and was about to move when he noticed the appellant’s maroon coloured MPV “dash” past him and then the motorcycle crashed against the MPV. Similarly, Haji Roslan who was on a bicycle gave a similar version of what he saw. Neo and Haji Roslan were cross-examined and they maintained their version of the accident. The trial judge accepted their evidence, and after considering them with the rest of the evidence, including the expert evidence of the defence, she found the appellant guilty as charged.

In so far as the facts were concerned, I did not think that I could interfere with the findings made below especially when important facts were gleaned from the testimonies of eye-witnesses. Mr Sreenivasan, counsel for the appellant, argued that the court below failed to apply Lim Hong Eng v PP [2009] 3 SLR(R) 682, (“Lim Hong Eng”) a previous decision of this court. Counsel submitted that the evidence in the appellant’s case were similar to that in Lim Hong Eng. I did not think so. I held in Lim Hong Eng that what constituted dangerous as well as rash driving are matters of fact for the trial judge to determine. Only obvious instances in which the appellate can be certain that the facts were wrong would it interfere. Lim Hong Eng was an unusual case because the findings of fact made by the trial judge supported the appellant’s case that she was more negligent than rash....