Tan Meng Lian and Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Wong Choon Ning
• Judgment Date: 30 July 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] SGDC 233
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Court: District Court (Singapore)

Judgment:

Grounds of Decision

The accused claimed trial before me to the following three charges:-

ERP 75005/2000-1 (Exh. P1)

"You, Tan Meng Lian ID No. S 1261195 A

are charged that you, on 18.4.2000 at about 3.01 pm along Havelock Road / Clemenceau did use a de-registered motor van no. GH 6840 C when its registration under the Road Traffic Act, Chapter 276, had been cancelled on 7.4.2000, in contravention of Section 10(1) and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 10(3) of the aforesaid Act."

ERP 75005/2000-2 (Exh. P2)

"You, Tan Meng Lian ID No. S 1261195 A

are charged that you, on 18.4.2000 at about 3.01 pm along Havelock Road / Clemenceau did use motor van no. GH 6840 C for which a motor vehicle licence issued under Part 1 of the Road Traffic Act, Chapter 276 was not in force (vehicle was de-registered on 7.4.2000) and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 29(1) of the Road Traffic Act, Chapter 276."

ERP 75005/2000-3 (Exh. P3)

"You, Tan Meng Lian ID No. S 1261195 A

are charged that you, on 18.4.2000 at about 3.01 pm along Havelock Road / Clemenceau did use motor van no. GH 6840 C when there was not in force in relation to the user of the said vehicle such a policy of insurance or security 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 3(1) and punishable under Section 3(2) of the said Act, Chapter 189."

2. The accused was jointly tried with one Tan Cheng Oh who was a partner of the car hire firm from which the accused had hired the motor van in question. Mr Tan Cheng Oh was charged for having kept the said motor van when its registration had been cancelled, for having permitted the accused to use the said motor van for which a motor vehicle licence was not in force and for having permitted the accused to use the said motor van whilst there was not in force in relation to the user of the said van such a policy of insurance or security in respect of third-party risks.

3. At the conclusion of the trial, I found that the prosecution had proven its case on all the three charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and accordingly I convicted the accused on all the charges. He was fined $700 and $600 for the first and second charges under Sections 10 and 29(1) of the Road Traffic Act respectively. For the third charge under Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicle (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act, the accused was fined $900 and disqualified from driving or obtaining a driving licence for all classes of vehicles for a period of 18 months. As for the case against Mr Tan Cheng Oh, I found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against him beyond a reasonable doubt and accordingly I acquitted him of all the three charges.

4. The defence has now appealed against the orders of conviction and sentence for all the three charges against the accused. There is no appeal by the prosecution against the orders of acquittal in respect of Mr Tan Cheng Oh.

UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE

5. The following facts were not in dispute by all parties. On 19 Jan 2000, the accused hired a motor van bearing registration number GL 3358 from Messrs Ban Hong Lee Motor Services (hereinafter referred to as "the car hire firm"). Mr Tan Cheng Oh (DW 3), who was a partner of the said car hire firm, personally attended to the accused. The said van was hired to the accused on a monthly basis, in consideration of a monthly hire fee of $750. Under the agreement, the accused was obliged to return the van to the car hire firm by 19 Feb 2000 or, alternatively, if he wished to continue hiring the van, renew the hire by paying the next month's hire fee of $750 by 19 Feb 2000.

6. On 19 Jan 2000, the accused also signed a standard vehicle rental agreement (D3A) and he paid the hire fee of $750 in full. The standard vehicle rental agreement referred to certain terms and conditions of hire which could be found printed at the back of the said agreement. In particular, clause 1 stipulated that, if the car rental firm were to request for the return of the van before the due date, the accused was obliged to return it on the earlier pre-arranged date. Clause 3 further stated that the hire fee was payable in advance and that any additional rental charges which might have been incurred at the time the van was returned would immediately become due for payment.

7. On 27 Jan 2000, the accused returned the van GL 3358 to the car hire firm, as he was unhappy with the condition of the van. He wanted to switch to another vehicle. On this occasion, it was not DW 3, but the latter's sister, one Tan Siew Kheng (DW 4), who attended to the accused.

8. As the earlier vehicle rental agreement had not expired by then, the accused was permitted to hire and drive away another vehicle, with its monthly period of hire commencing from 19 Jan 2000. The accused then chose another motor van bearing registration number GH 6840 C. The monthly hire fee for this new van was also $750. As the accused was unwilling to pay another sum of money as the deposit for the new van, upon his request, the $750 payment which he had made for the earlier van was transferred to this new van as the first monthly hire fee and deposit. It was similarly agreed that this new van would be hired to the accused on a monthly basis. The accused had the option of either returning the van to the car hire firm by 19 Feb 2000 or continuing to pay the monthly hire fees if he wished to extend the hire. For this van, the accused signed a new standard vehicle rental agreement (D1A) which had the same terms and conditions of hire printed on the back thereof.

9. The van GH 6840 C would reach the age-limit of 20 years prescribed for the class of vehicles to which it belonged on 7 Apr 2000. The Registrar was expected to cancel the registration of the vehicle once it exceeded its age-limit, pursuant to Section 27 of the Road Traffic Act. Similarly, the vehicle licence of the van would expire on 7 Apr 2000. The road tax for the van had also been paid only till 7 Apr 2000. Upon the expiry of the statutory life span of the van, the vehicle licence and the road tax on 7 Apr 2000, the van could no longer be used on any public road. However, on 19 and 27 Jan 2000, as it was still some three months before the expiry date and the accused was expected to return to the car hire firm well before 7 Apr 2000, neither DW 3 nor DW 4 informed the accused that the van would be de-registered in Apr 2000.

10. The accused, however, failed to appear at the car hire firm on 19 Feb 2000. In Feb and Mar 2000, Mr Tan Cheng Oh (DW 3) paged for and telephoned the accused on numerous occasions to demand for the arrears or the return of the van, but to no avail. Finally, on 25 Mar 2000, DW 3 sent one of his workers to the accused's house to try and collect the monthly hire fee. DW 3 handed to the worker a letter of demand (D2), which stated that a total of $1,500 was now owed to the car hire firm. This sum represented the hire fee for two months which would, by virtue of Clause 3 of the standard vehicle rental agreement, be due and owing to the car hire firm on 25 Mar 2000. The letter of demand was prepared by DW 3's sister, Tan Siew Kheng (DW 4).

11. DW 3 was subsequently informed by his worker that no one was at the accused's house. He hence instructed his worker to insert the letter of demand under the door of the accused's house. Nevertheless, even after this visit and further numerous calls made to the accused, the latter failed to make any payment or return the van to the car hire firm in Mar 2000.

12. On 18 Apr 2000, at about 3.01 pm, the accused drove the motor van GH 6840 C past the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) gantry at the junction of Havelock Road and Clemenceau Avenue. At the material time, the van could no longer be legally used on the road, as its registration had been cancelled on 7 Apr 2000 upon the expiry of its statutory life span. There was also no vehicle licence in force in respect of the van. The authorities were alerted to the use of this van on 18 Apr 2000 when the van was detected by the ERP facility at the said road junction. At the material time, in relation to the accused's use of the van, there was also no policy of insurance or security in respect of third-party risks which complied with the requirements of the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act, Chapter 189.

13. On 26 Apr 2000, the accused returned the van GH 6840 C to the car hire firm.

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED DURING THE TRIAL

14. Ms Tan Siew Kheng (DW 4) testified that, on 27 Jan 2000, when she hired the van GH 6840 C to the accused, she had not realised that the van was due for de-registration on 7 Apr 2000. She hence did not inform the accused of this when he hired the van.

15. DW 4 admitted that she would have first become aware of the de-registration date for the van GH 6840 C sometime between 15 and 25 Mar 2000. This was because it was DW 4's practice, in the middle of each month, to print out from the office computer system a list of the due dates for road tax and insurance for the vehicles owned by the car hire firm. At the material time, DW 4, who was a clerk in the car hire firm, was responsible for checking the various due dates for over two hundred vehicles which were owned by the car hire firm, as well as a sister firm, Messrs National Automobile Services. All these vehicles would be let out for hire.

16. Nevertheless, although DW 4 would have noticed the de-registration date for the van GH 6840 C in the said printed list before 25 Mar 2000, this fact slipped her mind on 25 Mar 2000, when she was approached by her elder brother, DW 3, to prepare the letter of demand (D2). DW 4 gave evidence that it was on a Saturday and she was in a hurry, when DW 3 told her to put up the...