Toh Yong Soon v Public Prosecutor

JurisdictionSingapore
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
JudgeChoo Han Teck J
Judgment Date15 March 2011
Neutral Citation[2011] SGHC 57
Citation[2011] SGHC 57
Hearing Date01 March 2011
Published date17 March 2011
Subject MatterRoad traffic
Date15 March 2011
Plaintiff CounselJulian Tay Wei Loong and Cheryl Kam Li Anne (Lee & Lee)
Docket NumberMagistrate’s Appeal No 466 of 2010 (ERP 60028 of 2010)
Defendant CounselGillian Koh-Tan (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
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 motor vehicle in Singapore; or 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Muhammad Faizal
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 4 October 2011
    ...[1998] 3 SLR (R) 1; [1998] 3 SLR 402 (folld) Stewart Ashley James v PP [1996] 3 SLR (R) 106; [1996] 3 SLR 426 (folld) Toh Yong Soon v PP [2011] 3 SLR 147 (refd) Whittall v Kirby [1947] KB 194 (folld) Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Rev Ed) ss 3 (2) , 3......
  • Prathib s/o M Balan v PP
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 22 November 2017
    ...PP [2002] 1 SLR(R) 265; [2002] 2 SLR 73 (refd) Stewart Ashley James v PP [1996] 3 SLR(R) 106; [1996] 3 SLR 426 (refd) Toh Yong Soon v PP [2011] 3 SLR 147 (refd) Legislation referred to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 383(1) (consd); s 4 Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and ......
  • Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Fuad Bin Abdul Samad
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 19 May 2014
    ...every reasonable alternative before driving.” Special circumstances must be proved to the satisfaction of the court In Toh Yong Soon v PP [2011] SGHC 57, in dismissing an appeal by the Appellant against the order of disqualification imposed against him in respect of a charge of permitting a......
  • Public Prosecutor v Tan Yee Hoe
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 2 January 2014
    ...months. Special circumstances must be proved to the satisfaction of the court In Magistrate’s Appeal No 466 of 2010, Toh Yong Soon v PP [2011] SGHC 57, in dismissing an appeal by the Appellant against the order of disqualification imposed against him in respect of a charge of permitting an ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT