Close | Public Prosecutor v Chin Chee Hai [2009] SGDC 496 |
| TP 91000032511, MA 356/2009 | |
| 21 Dec 2009 | |
| District Court | |
| Salina Bte Ishak | |
| Prosecuting Officer Inspector K Rasiah for the prosecution, Leonard Loo of Leonard Loo LLP for the accused |
Judgment
21 December 2009 District Judge Salina Ishak: The Charge 1. This is an appeal only against the conviction of the Accused, Chin Chee Hai for an offence of inconsiderate driving under Section 65(b) Road Traffic Act (Cap 276). The Accused had claimed trial to the following charge: Charge You, are charged that you on the 6th day of January 2009 at about 2.00 pm at the non-signalised T-junction of the main road of Ayer Rajah Crescent with the entrance/exit of ST Automotive Vehicle Inspection Centre, Singapore, did drive motor bus CB 4971A, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, to wit, failing to exercise care whilst turning right into ST Automotive Vehicle Inspection Centre from the main road of Ayer Rajah Crescent, encroaching into the travel path of another motorcycle FP 4474 J, who was traveling out from ST Automotive Vehicle Inspection Centre and thus resulting in a collision with the said motorcycle and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 65(b) of the Road Traffic Act, Chapter 276. 2. Initially, the Accused had discharged his Counsel, Mr Leonard Loo, prior to the commencement of the trial. He sought an adjournment to engage another lawyer but I directed the matter to proceed as the matter was fixed for hearing on that day. Nevertheless, Mr Loo once again represented the Accused after the evidence of the first prosecution witness, PW 1, after the Accused’s wife instructed him to do so. At the close of the entire case, I found the Accused guilty of the said charge and convicted him accordingly. After a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I sentenced to fine of $800 in default 4 days’ imprisonment. 3. Dissatisfied with my decision, the Accused lodged a Notice of Appeal against his conviction on the same day on 2 November 2009. The Accused has paid the fine in respect of the said offence. 4. I now give detailed reasons for my decision. The Prosecution’s Case PW 1 – Corporal Lum Wangyan Ian 5. The first witness for the prosecution is Corporal Lum Wangyan, Ian(PW 1) who is attached to the Traffic Police Department Patrol Unit. On 6 January 2009 at 2.05 pm, he was directed to attend to a case of a road traffic accident at Ayer Rajah Crescent outside ST Automotive Inspection Centre. 6. PW 1 arrived at the scene at 2.27 pm and established that this was a case of a road traffic accident between a motorcycle FB 4474 J ridden by Ganesh s/o Anbalagan(PW 2) and a motor bus CB 4971 A driven by one Chin Chee Hai(DW 1). PW 1 was able to recognize Chin Chee Hai and identified the Accused as the driver of the motor bus. 7. PW 1 testified that when he arrived at the scene, both the driver and rider were there. The rider was inside the ambulance but was conscious. He was then conveyed to the hospital. PW 1 further testified that the damage to the bus was mostly on the right hand corner as indicated in the Vehicle Damage Report marked as “Exhibit P2”. There were cracks at the corner of the headlamp and scratches on the front bumper of the motor bus. 8. In respect of the Vehicle Damage Report for the motorcycle prepared by him, “Exhibit P3”, PW 1 gave evidence that he noted that there were scratches on the right mirror of the motorcycle as well as on the left handle bar and brake lever of the motorcycle. PW 1 further gave evidence that the right handle grip was also scratched and dented. PW 1 noted that the left leg rest of the motorcycle was ripped off and the left rear signal light was cracked. Apart from the vehicle damage report in respect of both vehicles, PW 1 also drew a sketch plan of the scene of the accident. 9. During cross-examination, PW 1 was asked whether he was trailing the Accused. He responded that he was not following the bus driver on the day of the incident. 10. Before the evidence of the next prosecution witness, Counsel tendered a set of 14 photographs showing the scene of the accident as well as the two vehicles that were involved in the collision. These photographs were marked for identification as Exhibit “A” to “H”. PW 2 – Ganesh s/o Anbalagan 11. The next witness for the prosecution was the victim, Mr Ganesh s/o Anbalagan (PW 2), a Process Technician with a chemical plant, VOPAK Terminals. He testified that on 6 January 2009, he was involved in a traffic accident at the entrance of ST Automotive Inspection Centre. He testified that he had gone to ST Automotive Inspection Centre to change to a new set of in-vehicle unit for his motorcycle FB 4474 J. After he had changed the in-vehicle unit, he left the inspection centre. 12. When he left the inspection centre, he rode towards the exit of ST Automotive Inspection Centre and stopped at the Stop line once he was at the gate. He then positioned himself more towards the left of the outgoing lane as he was turning left. He saw a bus approaching at quite a reasonable speed of around 25 to 30 km/h. He saw that the bus did not seem to stop and just kept moving towards him. As he had to react quickly, he swerved his motorcycle to the left as he was positioned to the left. Straightaway, he was hit by the bus and both he and his pillion, Mr Kesavan Naidu s/o Nagapooshanam then fell 2 metres away from the motorcycle. PW 2 testified that he sustained linear and facial injuries while his pillion did not sustain any injuries. PW1 further testified that he called for Traffic Police with the help of some ST Automotive Centre staff. Thereafter, an ambulance arrived and took him to the hospital. He was discharged on the same day and was given some painkillers. 13. PW 2 testified that he had stopped at the left side inside the Stop line box and his handle bar was facing to the left. When he came out of the inspection centre, he had stopped to look out for traffic before he turned left. When he first came to the Stop line, he had seen the bus coming towards him from his left. He noted that there were a lot of vehicles parked along Ayer Rajah Road and as such their vision was “quite blocked”. He further testified that he saw the bus when it was a few metres in front of him. He was waiting at the Stop line as he felt that he should wait for some time until he was comfortable to move off. When he saw the bus approaching, he panicked and threw his clutch i.e. released his clutch quickly and swerved to his left. After the accident, is motorcycle fell to the left as shown in the photographs marked “L”, “M” and “N” i.e. Exhibits D12 to D14. 14. During cross-examination when asked whether the proper thing to do was to stay in the middle of the lane rather than to keep to the left of the lane when he was waiting at the Stop line, PW 2 disagreed. When Counsel made reference to what he had learnt in the Highway Code as a rider when riding in a single lane, PW 2 responded that one should keep in the centre of the lane. He also agreed that as a motorcyclist, when he travels in a single lane, he would ride as if he was a car and to keep in the middle of the lane. When asked which of the photographs showed the scene immediately after the accident, PW 2 testified that it was photographs J, K, L, M and N i.e. Exhibit D10 to D14. 15. During cross-examination, PW 2 testified that he had waited at the Stop sign more to the left hand side and then he saw the bus approaching from his left hand side. When asked if he saw a bus coming or a bus is about to collide at him, a reasonable person would have swerved to the right to avoid colliding into the bus, PW 2 disagreed with Counsel’s suggestion. When he was further asked that in such a situation by swerving to the left, he would have contributed to a sure accident, PW 2 responded that there was no chance for him to swerve to the right because he was already positioned to the left and the bus was too big and too quick for him to think and act accordingly. 16. During cross-examination, PW 2 was asked whether there was any obstruction on his right hand side which had prevented him from swerving to the right, PW 2 maintained that as his bike was already positioned to the left and the bus was already very close to him, it would take him a lot of time and energy as his motorcycle was a big motorcycle. He added that the bus itself was an obstacle to him. PW 2 gave evidence that there were no other vehicles waiting at the Stop line just as the bus approached him. He disagreed with Counsel when it was suggested that it would take the same amount of effort to swerve to the left or right even though his motorcycle was a big motorcycle. 17. During cross-examination, PW 2 confirmed that his motorcycle fell onto the opposite lane after the accident. This was the lane meant for vehicles entering into ST Automotive Centre. When it was suggested that if he were waiting near the Stop sign inside the box, he would have been able to swerve to the left side of the bus, PW 2 disagreed with Counsel’s suggestion. When it was further suggested that he had been traveling on the wrong side of the road while traveling from ST Automotive Centre, PW 2 disagreed with Counsel’s suggestion. PW 2 confirmed that his motorcycle had moved a little as he tried to avoid the accident. 18. When asked further how was it that his motorcycle had moved completely to the opposite lane which is the incoming lane into ST Automotive Centre, PW 2 testified that it was because his motorcycle was positioned to the left and as such it was very easy and the only possible way. When it was put to him that his motorcycle was positioned in such a way as he was riding against the flow of traffic, PW 2 disagreed with counsel. PW 2 testified that the dark puddle shown in photograph D i.e. Exhibit D4 was the vehicle engine oil from his motorcycle that had leaked after the accident and that it was on the incoming lane to ST Automotive Centre. He further testified that at the time of the collision, the bus was in the incoming lane of the ST Automotive Centre. PW 2 gave evidence that he had swerved to the opposite side due to the improper checking of the blind spot by the Accused. He had swerved to the left to avoid a collision and it was a reaction in a state of panic. PW 2 confirmed that he had not filed any claim against the bus driver or the bus company. 19. When it was put to PW 2 that he was responsible for the accident as he had failed to keep to the middle of the outgoing lane of ST Automotive Centre and that he had swerved or rode on the incoming lane, he disagreed with Counsel. He also disagreed when it was put to him that he had in fact failed to exercise reasonable consideration for other road users which had caused this accident. 20. During his re-examination, PW 2 maintained that it was the Accused who was responsible for the accident. The reason was because he had not checked his blind spot when he turned into the inspection centre. PW 3 – Senior Staff Sergeant Koh Chye Aik 21. The next witness for the prosecution was Senior Staff Sergeant Koh Chye Aik (PW 3), attached to Traffic Police Department and who was the investigating officer of the present case. Exhibit P5, the First Information Report and Exhibit P6, the Notice of Intended Prosecution were tendered as part of the prosecution’s case through him. Counsel elected not to cross-examine him on his evidence. PW 4 – Kesavan Naidu s/o Nagapooshanam 22. The final witness for the prosecution was Mr Kesavan Naidu s/o Nagapooshanam(PW 4), a student at Republic Polytechnic and who was the pillion rider of motorcycle FP 4474 J. PW 4 testified that on 6 January 2009 at about 2.00 pm, he was a pillion on a motorcycle ridden by the victim, Mr Ganesh s/o Anbalagan. PW 4 testified that they were good friends since their secondary school days. 23. PW 4 gave evidence that on the day of the incident, they were traveling in the correct lane. Once PW 2 reached the Stop line, he could recall that they were closer to the centre line. Once the motorcycle stopped, he noticed a bus turning into their direction and the bus was not slowing down. He testified that once PW 2 saw the bus, to avoid the collision, he had swerved his motorcycle to the left. The bus and motorcycle had a collision and PW 4 testified that he was thrown to the back of the motorcycle. When he stood up, he saw his friend PW 2 lying on the ground with his legs between his motorcycle with the bus in contact with the motorcycle. PW 4 testified that he had light scratches on his left calf and his right elbow. When the ambulance came, he was given basic first aid. His wounds were cleaned and plasters were placed on them. 24. PW 4 gave evidence that when PW 2 was turning out, he had seen the bus driver(the Accused). He was swirling i.e. turning his steering wheel and was heading towards their direction. PW 4 had a clear view of his face. He testified that the Accused had only seen them on the motorcycle in the nick of time before the collision occurred. PW 4 gave further evidence that PW 2’s motorcycle was on the Stop sign and it was on the left hand side of the letter ‘S’ in the Stop sign. PW 2’s motorcycle was a “Super Four” motorcycle and PW 4 was seated much higher than the rider. PW 4 testified that the motorcycle was stationary for 3 to 4 seconds and he estimated that he saw the bus 2 to 3 seconds before the collision. PW 4 testified that PW 2 had swerved to the left, his motorcycle had crossed the centerline and soon after the collision took place. 25. During his cross-examination, PW 4 testified that he did not have a motorcycle licence at the time of the accident. He further testified that he did have a driving licence at the time of the accident. He gave evidence that at the time when the motorcycle collided with the bus, the motorcycle was stationary. He gave further evidence that the motorcycle was in the incoming lane at the time of the collision. In order to avoid the collision, PW 4 testified that PW 2 had swerved to the left to avoid the accident. 26. When PW 4 was asked by Counsel whether the photographs L, M and N were a depiction of the scene immediately after the motorcycle collided with the bus, he agreed with him. He also agreed that at this point of collision, the motorcycle was in the incoming lane of ST Automotive Centre. Close of Prosecution’s Case 27. At the close of the Prosecution’s case, there were no submissions made by Counsel that the Accused did not have a case to answer. After a careful consideration of the evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses before me, I was satisfied that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case which if unrebutted by the defence, would warrant the conviction in respect of the said charge. The standard allocution was administered and the accused elected to give evidence. The Defence DW 1 – Chin Chee Hai 28. The Accused in the present case is Mr Chin Chee Hai a workshop mechanic with Savoy Motor. He gave evidence that on 6 January 2009 at about nearly 2.00 pm, he was driving CB 4971 A when he was involved in a collision with motorcycle FP 4474 J. He was heading towards ST Automotive for a vehicle inspection. This was not his first time that he had been to ST Automotive as he would usually go there two or three times a week for bus inspection. He added that when he goes to the inspection centre, he did not always drive a bus to there. 29. He gave evidence that the 14 photographs that were tendered by the defence were taken by the owner of the bus and they were a correct depiction of the accident scene on that day. As it was agreed by both the prosecution and the defence that the photographs were to be admitted, I marked and admitted the photographs as Exhibits D1 to D14. 30. The Accused testified that on the day in question, when he was driving the bus into ST Automotive Inspection Centre, he first noticed the motorcycle during the turn into his lane. He was turning into the right lane into the incoming lane of the inspection centre when he saw the motorcycle turning to its left. At the time of the collision, the motorcycle was in the outgoing lane. The Accused gave evidence that the motorcycle came to quickly for him to avoid the collision. He had already stopped when the motorcycle hit onto him. He had stopped the bus when he saw something approach. 31. When asked by Counsel whether he admitted to the present charge of driving inconsiderately in causing the accident, he denied the charge. He further testified that the motorcyclist did not take heed of his route and had even encroached to his right into the incoming lane. At that time, he was traveling at about 15 to 20 km/h. He was unable to estimate the speed of the motorcycle at the time of the collision. He gave evidence that just before the accident both his bus and the motorcycle had moved. 32. During cross-examination, the Accused confirmed that he was turning right from Ayer Rajah Crescent into ST Automotive Inspection Centre. He confirmed that he did see the motorcycle at the entrance when he turned right and he was nearing the stretch of road as shown in photograph D2. He confirmed that photograph D2 shows the exit and entrance of the inspection centre. When the Accused first saw the motorcycle, it was to his right. He gave evidence that when he was about to turn from Ayer Rajah Crescent, the motorcycle came and collide into the bus. 33. During cross-examination, the Accused gave evidence that at Ayer Rajah Crescent Road, he had turned right to see the road before he made the turn. At that time, the motorcycle had already approached. At that time, the said motorcycle was slight behind the location he had marked earlier. He was unable to tell if the victim was in the ‘In’ or ‘Out’ lane but was in the middle. He gave evidence that he was keeping a lookout for the vehicles in front and had only turned right when there were no vehicles in front from the main road i.e. Ayer Rajah Crescent. The Accused confirmed that the road that leads to St Automotive was a minor road and that the motorcycle was from the said road. He testified that he had more than 20 years driving experience. 34. The Accused confirmed that when he was traveling along Ayer Rajah Crescent, he had wanted to make a right turn into a minor road. He also confirmed that before he turned into the said minor road, he had stopped along the major road i.e. Ayer Rajah Crescent. He had stopped before making the right turn in order to keep a proper lookout for oncoming vehicles from the front (i.e. opposite direction). When he saw that there was no oncoming traffic, he turned. He then saw that the motorcycle had approached. He had seen the motorcycle while he was along the major road coming out of ST Automotive. When he was asked why he had not allowed the motorcycle to move out of the road first, the Accused responded that it was because there were no oncoming vehicles and he was about to turn in. He added that he could not remain along the main road for too long. 35. When the Accused was confronted with his evidence that there was a motorcycle coming out from his right, he responded that it already came when he turned. When asked further as to why he did not allow the motorcycle to come out when he noticed the motorcycle, he responded that he was nearing the right side and did not expect the motorcycle to encroach to his right. He confirmed that when he first saw the motorcycle, it was not encroaching to his right. When asked once again why he had not allowed the motorcycle to come out, he replied that he was in his lane and was afraid that there would be vehicles coming ahead. He confirmed that if there were oncoming vehicles, he would not be able to turn right. He further testified that he had turned even though there was a vehicle on his right because there was still some distance ahead of him when he made the turn and he believed that he could turn right. 36. During cross-examination, when asked whether his bus was a big bus, he replied in the affirmative. When asked further whether the said bus was “longish”, he responded that he believed so. He confirmed that when he was turning into the lane, there was an “In” and “Out” lane. When asked since his bus was a big bus and is long, whether he must encroach into the outgoing lane to complete the turn, the Accused replied in the affirmative. When the prosecution referred the Accused to photograph D1 and was asked if his bus was encroaching into the “Out” lane of the road, he replied that there was bound to be slight encroaching. When asked if there was any vehicle on the road in the outgoing lane, it must take evasive action, the Accused replied that he could not have turned in if there were vehicles. When confronted again with his evidence that he had seen a motorcycle coming out, the Accused responded that he thought the motorcycle would turn back in its own direction. He gave evidence that he could not be certain when the motorcycle was in the middle, but he knew that there was a motorcycle coming. When it was suggested that he knew there was a motorcycle turning but had still made the turn because he did not want to miss the opportunity as there was no oncoming traffic, he responded that if there was no oncoming traffic, he would have turned. 37. When it was put to the Accused that when he made the right turn from Ayer Rajah Crescent, he did not see i.e. check if any traffic was coming in or out of the road leading into ST Automotive Vehicle Inspection Centre, he disagreed. When it was further put to him that when he made the turn, his bus went slightly into the lane for vehicles coming out and at that point in time, he suddenly saw this motorcycle which had to avoid his bus had swerved to the left and he then collided into the motorcycle, he agreed with the prosecution. He disagreed with the prosecution when it was put to him that the motorcycle was stationary at the junction waiting to turn left. When the charge was put to him, the Accused remained silent. When I asked what was his answer to the question, he responded by retorting that it was the prosecution’s case that it was his fault. When I explained that otherwise he would not be in Court, he then replied in the affirmative. 38. During re-examination, when asked by his Counsel why did he admit that he was guilty and at fault for the accident when the prosecution suggested that he was guilty of the charge, the Accused responded that it was because he had driven the vehicle that way. He added that if he was asked in what way he was at fault, he did not know how to explain. When his Counsel attempted to clarify his response when he had agreed with the prosecution that he was guilty of the charge, he replied that it was pointless for him to answer when he did not know how to express himself. He added he had engaged Counsel to assist him. 39. During re-examination when he was asked if he admitted or denied the charge of inconsiderate driving, the Accused replied that he did not believe that he was guilty. When asked by Counsel why he had agreed to the prosecution’s suggestion that he was guilty of the charge earlier, once again the Accused remained silent. When asked by the Court for his response, he responded that he did not know how to explain or express himself. When asked by his Counsel whether there was anything that he could have done at that time to avoid the accident, he replied that at that time he was just traveling along his way and did not expect an accident to happen. He gave evidence that he was making a right turn from Ayer Rajah Crescent to ST Automotive Inspection Centre to the lane going to the inspection centre. 40. At the close of the entire case, both the prosecution and the defence requested for time to submit written submissions. The matter was subsequently adjourned to 2 November 2009 and I had directed parties to submit their written submissions by 30 October 2009. Prosecution’s Submissions 41. Essentially, it was the prosecution’s case that the Accused had driven his bus CB 4971 A without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road when he failed to exercise care when turning his bus from the main road at Ayer Rajah Crescent and had encroached into the travel path of motorcycle FP 4474 J which resulted in a collision with the motorcycle. It was submitted that the Accused had been concentrating so much on the oncoming traffic from the opposite direction along Ayer Rajah Crescent that he had no paid any attention to traffic on his left that was exiting out of the ST Automotive Inspection Centre. It was further submitted that the Accused agreed that his bus had encroached into the exit lane of the inspection centre and the photographs D1, D10, D11, D12, D13 and D14 had clearly showed that the bus had encroached into the exit lane. Defence’s Submissions 42. In his oral submissions, Counsel submitted that PW 1 admitted that he was traveling on the outgoing lane and secondly in the aftermath of the accident, the motorcycle had landed on the outgoing lane of the premises. According to Counsel, this proves that it was the victim who caused the accident by going against the flow of traffic. 43. It was further submitted that the victim claimed that he waited at the Stop sign, a bit on the left just before the accident cannot be right in view of the above submissions. Counsel then invited the Court to acquit the Accused of the charge on a balance of probabilities. Prosecution’s Reply 44. In response to Counsel’s submissions, the prosecution highlighted that the Accused himself had testified that the victim was traveling along the centre lane and in other words, he was well within his lane. Just because the motorcycle had dropped in the left lane did not necessarily mean that it was traveling against the flow of traffic. The photographs D1, D10 to D14 clearly showed that the bus encroached into the victim’s path. The latter took evasive action but the bus had still collided into him. That is the reason why the motorcycle was at the mouth of the junction. 45. It was further submitted that it could be seen that the rear wheel of the motorcycle was almost at the centre of the lane (in the photographs). If the motorcycle was brought up from its horizontal position, it will be well within its on own lane. Accordingly, the prosecution urged the Court to convict the Accused as charged. Assessment of Evidence 46. The main issue before me was whether on the facts of the present case the Accused had driven his bus without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road by failing to exercise care when he turned right into ST Automotive Vehicle Inspection Centre from the main road of Ayer Rajah Crescent. 47. On the facts, it was undisputed that on the day in question i.e. 6 January 2009 prior to the accident, the victim, PW 2 and his friend, PW 4, were on motorcycle FP 4474 J and that they were leaving ST Automotive Inspection Centre. PW 2 had intended to turn left from the inspection centre into Ayer Rajah Crescent. It was also undisputed that the Accused had driven motor bus CB 4971 A and he was on his way to the said inspection centre from Ayer Rajah Crescent. To get to the inspection centre, the Accused would have to turn right from Ayer Rajah Crescent. 48. PW 2 had testified that the motorcycle was within the outgoing lane when he stopped his motorcycle at the Stop line once he was at the exit of the inspection centre. He then positioned himself more towards the left of the outgoing lane as he had intended to turn to the left. PW 2 had given evidence that he saw the Accused’s bus approaching at a speed of around 25 to 30 km/h. It was his evidence that the bus did not seem to stop and just kept moving towards him. He had reacted by swerving his motorcycle to the left as he was positioned to the left. Despite his efforts, he and his pillion were hit by the Accused’s bus. 49. PW 4 had given evidence that on the day of the incident, they were traveling in the correct lane. He recalled that they were closer to the centre line once they reached the Stop line. Once the motorcycle stopped, he noticed a bus turning into their direction and the bus was not slowing down. To avoid the collision, PW 4 testified that PW 2 had swerved his motorcycle to the left. The bus and motorcycle had collided into each other and PW 4 testified that he was thrown to the back of the motorcycle. 50. The Accused had testified that on the day in question, when he drove the bus into ST Automotive Inspection Centre, he noticed the motorcycle during the turn into his lane. He was turning into the right lane into the incoming lane of the inspection centre when he saw the motorcycle turning to its left. At the time of the collision, the motorcycle was in the outgoing lane. He gave evidence that he kept a lookout for the vehicles in front and had only turned right when there were no vehicles in front from the main road i.e. Ayer Rajah Crescent. The Accused gave evidence that the motorcycle had come too quickly for him to avoid the collision and had already stopped his bus when the motorcycle hit him. 51. I noted that when asked by the prosecution since his bus was a big bus and is long, whether the Accused must encroach into the outgoing lane to complete the turn, he had replied in the affirmative. When the prosecution referred the Accused to photograph D1 and was asked if his bus was encroaching into the “Out” lane of the road, he conceded that there was bound to be slight encroaching. I also noted that when asked if there was any vehicle on the road in the outgoing lane, it must take evasive action, the Accused replied that he could not have turned in if there were vehicles. The Accused also when confronted with his evidence that he had seen a motorcycle coming out had responded that he had thought the motorcycle would turn back in its own direction. 52. On the facts, I found that both PW 2 and PW 4 were forthright witnesses who gave very clear and unequivocal evidence of what had transpired that afternoon at the junction of Ayer Rajah Crescent and the entrance/exit of ST Automotive Inspection Centre. Their respective testimonies were unshaken and had in fact corroborated each other materially despite the cross-examination by the defence. As such, I accepted their evidence that the Accused had failed to exercise care when he turned right into the inspection centre and had collided into their motorcycle. I also accepted PW 2’s evidence that as his motorcycle was already facing to the left, there was no opportunity for him to react on time and swerve to the right. 53. In contrast, I rejected the Accused’s evidence that PW 2 did not take heed of the Accused’s route and that at that time the latter was just traveling along his way and did not expect an accident to happen. I also did not accept his position that it was the victim who caused the accident by going against the flow of traffic. The Accused had given evidence that he kept a lookout for the vehicles in front and had only turned right when there were no vehicles in front from the main road i.e. Ayer Rajah Crescent. The Accused had conceded that he had turned right even though there was a vehicle on his right because there was still some distance ahead of him when he made the turn and he believed that he could turn right. 54. On the facts, I found that the Accused was well-aware that he would have encroached into the victim’s path in the outgoing lane when he turned right into the inspection centre. He himself had conceded that he could not have turned if there was a vehicle in the outgoing lane. This was clearly evident from the photographs D1, D10, D11, D12, D13 and D14 tendered by the defence as the bus had a wider turning radius and in addition was much longer in length compared to a car. This is because the Accused’s bus or other similar large vehicles such as heavy vehicles has a large wheel base and as such will have a larger turning radius. Thus, in order to make a right angle turn into the inspection centre, he would have encroached into the lane for outgoing vehicles. 55. I also found that the Accused was more concerned about making a right turn into the inspection vehicle once there was no oncoming traffic from the opposite direction of Ayer Rajah Crescent that he had not paid any attention to vehicles that were exiting the inspection centre. Further despite seeing the victim’s motorcycle moments before the collision as he made the right turn, the Accused still proceeded with the turn as he expected the victim to take evasive action to avoid the collision despite knowing that his bus would encroach into the outgoing lane. On the facts, I found that the Accused had in fact failed to exercise care and keep a proper lookout when turning right into the inspection centre and had acted without reasonable consideration to other road users when he decided to make the turn. 56. Accordingly, after a careful consideration of the facts and the circumstances of the case, I found that the prosecution had proved its case against the Accused in respect of the charge of inconsiderate driving beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I found the Accused guilty and as such convicted him on the said charge. I also found consequently, that the defence had failed to raise a reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case. Antecedents and Mitigation 57. The Accused has no prior antecedents. 58. In mitigation, Counsel submitted that the Accused has no prior record. The victim suffered minor lacerations and did not make any claim for it. He highlighted that the important thing was that the motorcycle owner did not make any claim for damages against his client. The Sentence 59. After a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I sentenced the Accused to a fine of $800 in default four days’ imprisonment; 60. Dissatisfied with my decision, the Accused lodged a Notice of Appeal against his conviction on 2 November 2009. The Accused has paid the court fine.
Chin Chee Hai, male Chinese. 47 years old
NRIC No: S2503670J
