Sriekaran s/o Thanka Samy v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 22 July 1998
• Date: 22 July 1998
• Docket Number: Magistrate’s Appeal No 63 of 1998
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Sriekaran s/o Thanka Samy

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[1998] SGHC 252

Yong Pung How CJ

Magistrate’s Appeal No 63 of 1998

High Court

Road Traffic—Offences—Driving without valid insurance —Driver believing that cheque for vehicle insurance had been accepted by insurance company —Whether circumstances justified dispensing with mandatory disqualification order—Section 3 (2) Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 1985 Rev Ed)

The appellant was charged with driving a motor vehicle without an insurance policy for third-party risks being in force, an offence under s 3 (1) of the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the Act”). He was convicted and fined $600 and sentenced to one year’s disqualification from driving vehicles of all classes. The appellant argued that exceptional circumstances existed for the court to do away with the disqualification order because he believed that his cheque had been accepted by the insurance company and that he was therefore validly insured at the material time.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The policy behind the 12-month mandatory disqualification of the Act was the deterrence of vehicles being used in circumstances endangering the user and other persons on the road, leaving such persons without compensation should the user not be able to satisfy the judgment. The “special reason” under s 3 (2) in order to dispense with the mandatory disqualification must be special to the offence, not the offender: at [4].

(2) The facts must show the appellant’s belief was based on reasonable grounds for his argument to succeed. Given that the appellant’s first cheque was dishonoured, and hence no valid insurance coverage applied to his car, it would have been reasonable to expect the appellant to ensure his second cheque was properly processed if indeed he genuinely sought to be covered by insurance. He made no effort to do so. No exceptional circumstances amounting to special reasons existed to excuse him from the mandatory order of disqualification: at [3] to [5].

Kanapathipillai, Re [1960] MLJ 243 (refd)

Knowler v Rennison [1947] 1 KB 488 (folld)

MV Balakrishnan v PP [1998] SGHC 169 (refd)

Stewart Ashley James v PP [1996] 3 SLR (R) 106; [1996] 3 SLR 426 (refd)

Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 1985 Rev Ed) s 3 (2) (consd);s 3 (1)

SK Kumar (SK Kumar & Associates) for the appellant

...