Toh Yong Soon v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 15 March 2011
• Neutral Citation: [2011] SGHC 57
• Plaintiff Counsel: Julian Tay Wei Loong and Cheryl Kam Li Anne (Lee & Lee)
• Docket Number: Magistrate’s Appeal No 466 of 2010 (ERP 60028 of 2010)
• Date: 15 March 2011
• Hearing Date: 01 March 2011
• Subject Matter: Road traffic
• Published date: 17 March 2011
• Citation: [2011] SGHC 57
• Defendant Counsel: Gillian Koh-Tan (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2011

Choo Han Teck J:

The appellant employed a person known as Arivalagan s/o Muthusamy (“Ari”) as a part-time driver for his company. Ari was subsequently found to be driving a lorry when he did not have a driver’s licence. The appellant was himself charged under s 35(3) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed), and s 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Rev Ed). Section 35(3) created the offence of permitting a motor vehicle to be driven by someone who did not have a valid driver’s licence. Section 3(1) created the offence of permitting a motor vehicle to be used when there was no insurance policy in force. The appellant pleaded guilty to both charges and was fined $500 and disqualified from driving all classes of motor vehicles for 12 months in respect of the conviction under s 3(1). He was fined $800 in respect of the s 35(3) conviction.

The appellant appealed only in respect of the disqualification. His counsel submitted that given the circumstances, the court ought to have accepted that there were special reasons not to impose the disqualification under s 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189) —

3. — (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall not be lawful for any person to use or to cause or permit any other person to use — (a) a motor vehicle in Singapore; or (b) a motor vehicle which is registered in Singapore in any territory specified in the Schedule, unless there is in force in relation to the use of the motor vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third-party risks as complies with the requirements of this Act.

Counsel for the appellant submitted that in this case, the appellant who he said had graduated from Nanyang Technological University with a degree in Accountancy, was working in his father’s construction company. He had employed Ari believing that Ari was one Kumar s/o Muthusamy (“Kumar”), who had a valid driver’s licence. Counsel submitted that it might be right to disqualify the driver (Ari) himself, and that it was not appropriate to disqualify an abettor like the appellant who was not the person who was driving without a licence.

There are no prescribed rules, as to what constitutes a “special reason” within the meaning of s 3(1). What is clear is that one might question the appropriateness of disqualifying an...