Close | Public Prosecutor v Yeo Cheng Khoy [2009] SGDC 510 |
| TP 81005495611, MA 371/2009 | |
| 28 Dec 2009 | |
| District Court | |
| Salina Bte Ishak | |
| Prosecuting Officer Inspector K Rasiah for the prosecution, Yeo Cheng Khoy, the Accused in person |
Judgment
28 December 2009 District Judge Salina Ishak: The Charge 1. This is an appeal against the conviction and sentence filed by the Accused, Yeo Cheng Khoy, who had claimed trial to a charge of careless driving under Rule 29 Road Traffic Rules. The charge against him is as follows: CHARGE You, are charged that you, on the 12th December 2008, on or about 10.25 am did drive motor van, GT 3199 C, on the left lane of 2-lanes along Bedok North Avenue 1 towards the direction of Bedok South Road, Singapore, otherwise than in an orderly and careful manner and without due regard for the safety of others, to wit, by failing to keep a proper lookout and hit onto a male pedestrian, Tan Yee Zhen, who was crossing the road from your right to left side and you have thereby committed an offence under Rule 29 Road Traffic Rules and punishable under Section 131(2) of the Road Traffic Act, Chapter 276. 2. 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 and disqualified him from driving or obtaining a driving licence for all classes of vehicles for a period of four months. 3. Dissatisfied with my decision, the Accused lodged a Notice of Appeal against his conviction and sentence on the same day on 10 November 2009. The Accused has paid the fine in respect of the said offence 4. I now provide the reasons for my decision. Prosecution’s Case 5. Before calling its first witness, the Prosecution tendered 11 photographs of the accident scene along Bedok North Avenue 1 that were taken by Staff Sergeant Alfred Tan Bhu Lim, a Police Photographer, attached to the Forensic Team of Investigation Violation Report Branch, Traffic Police Department whose condition statement was admitted and marked as “Exhibit PS1”. He had been directed to take these photographs by the investigating officer of the case, Senior Station Inspector Chew Sook Yeng (PW3). The 11 photographs were admitted and marked as “Exhibits P1 to P11”. PW1 – Corporal Lum Wangyan, Ian (Lin Wangyang, Ian) 6. The first witness for the prosecution was the First Police Officer at the Scene, Corporal Lum Wangyan, Ian (Lin Wanyang, Ian) (“PW1”) who was attached to the Traffic Police Patrol Unit. He testified that on 12 December 2008, he had attended to a case of accident between a motor van, GT 3199 C and a pedestrian. He further testified that he had arrived at the scene at 10.34 hours and the pedestrian had been conveyed to the hospital before his arrival at the scene. The First Police Officer’s Accident Report prepared by PW1 was admitted and marked as “Exhibit P12”. 7. PW1 gave evidence that the location of the accident was along Bedok North Avenue 1 towards the direction of Bedok South Road. The nearest lamp post was Lamp Post 40. He further gave evidence that there was a passenger in the said motor van and she was Mrs Tan Siew Kim. PW1 gave further evidence that he drew a sketch plan of the scene along Bedok North Avenue 1 towards Bedok South Road. His sketch plan was admitted and marked as “Exhibit P13”. PW1 testified that in his sketch plan, the motor van GT 3199 C was marked as (1) and L/P 40 referred to Lamp Post 40. In addition to the sketch plan, after inspecting the damage to the van, PW 1 prepared a Vehicle Damage Report that was admitted and marked as “Exhibit P14”. PW1 had observed that there were cracks at the bottom right corner of the front windscreen. PW1 confirmed that the damage to the said van was as reflected in photograph P7. 8. PW1 testified that when he arrived at the scene, he met one M Subramaniam (PW2). He took down the latter’s particulars as he had to report to the Operations Room if any police officer had come across an accident. He testified that PW2 is a Certis CISCO Auxiliary Police Officer. 9. During his cross-examination, when asked if the accident had occurred somewhere before the bus stop and that it had nothing to do with the lamp post 40, PW1 responded that on his arrival the said van was in its original position. When asked by the Accused if the accident had occurred at Lamp Post 42 but before the bus-stop and that the Accused had been asked to shift his van to one side so as not to block traffic, PW1 agreed to the suggestion. 10. PW1 further testified that he had drawn the sketch plan upon his arrival at the scene. He had interviewed the driver i.e. the Accused who informed him that he had moved the van after the accident. PW1 then proceeded to take measurements of the motor van GT 3199 C and ‘tied it’ with the nearest lamp post which was Lamp Post 40. He had also noticed traffic congestion on his arrival at the scene. After he had taken the measurements, he had asked the Accused to remove his vehicle into the bus bay. PW2 – M Subramaniam 11. The next witness for the prosecution was Mr M Subramaniam (“PW2”), a Certis CISCO Auxiliary Police Officer attached to Paya Lebar Division Headquarters. He testified that on 12 December 2008, he was on duty to send the guard i.e. Certis CISCO guards to the banks. After sending the guards, he had intended to go back to Paya Lebar Division Headquarters. While he was traveling along Bedok North Avenue 1, he saw a boy lying on the opposite direction of the lane he was traveling in. He further testified that he immediately made a U-turn and parked his Certis CISCO van behind the victim. He then controlled the traffic along the said road. 12. PW1 gave evidence that he was in uniform at that time. The driver of the van came and approached him. He informed the former that he was not an officer from Traffic Police and that they were on the way. The driver then left. PW2 identified the Accused as the driver who had approached him. When asked to mark the location of the victim lying on the road in a copy of the sketch plan (Exhibit P13), PW2 reflected this with a red stick figure. The copy of the sketch plan with PW2’s markings was admitted and marked as “Exhibit P13A”. When he was next asked to mark the victim’s position in photograph P3, he indicated it using a red ‘X’. 13. PW2 testified that when he made the U-turn, he had parked his van behind the injured victim to avoid further accidents and to protect the victim from any further injuries. He added that he controlled traffic and at that point in time, he was in his Certis CISCO uniform. He further testified that subsequently, an ambulance arrived and attended to the victim. After that the officer from Traffic Police (PW1) arrived. PW2 then handed over the matter to PW1 and left the scene. 14. During his cross-examination, when asked by the Accused whether the victim was lying near his vehicle, PW2 responded that the van was not near to the victim but away from the victim. When the Accused had stated that the victim’s position was more accurate in photograph P3, PW2 replied in the affirmative and that he had drawn the victim’s position in the centre of photograph P3. He added that to him when he looked at Exhibits P13A and photograph P3, both of them were quite similar. PW2 further clarified that the victim was not exactly near the van but the van was on the left hand side of the boy. He testified that the victim and the van were about 1.5 metres apart. PW3 – Senior Station Inspector Chew Sook Yeng (Zhou Suying) 15. The next witness for the prosecution was Senior Station Inspector Chew Sook Yeng (“PW3”) an Investigating Officer. He testified that he was the investigating officer into the present traffic accident. PW3 further testified that he established that the First Information Report (“FIR”) in respect of Incident No: G/20081212/0157 admitted and marked as “Exhibit P15” was the FIR in respect of the present case. He also confirmed that Police Report No: T/20081212/9042 dated 12 December 2008 at 13:51 hours and admitted and marked as “Exhibit P16” was the police report lodged by the Accused. 16. PW3 gave evidence that he was on duty on 12 December 2008 when he was informed of the case at 11.12 am. He then proceeded to the scene. He further gave evidence that he was informed by the Police Hospital Post at Changi General Hospital that the pedestrian i.e. the victim was unconscious and the injuries were serious. PW3 testified that when he arrived at the scene, he conducted on-scene investigations and checked the vehicle damage to the motor van. He further testified that the Accused and his van were at the scene. PW3 further testified that he directed the police photographer to take photographs of the accident scene. 17. PW3 testified that when he arrived at the scene, the vehicle was removed to the top portion of the bus stop as shown in photograph P2. PW3 further testified that on 30 March 2009, he received a medical report number MPP/09/18266 from Changi General Hospital in respect of the victim. The said medical report was admitted and marked as “Exhibit P17”. The medical report indicated that the victim had suffered traumatic brain injuries due to the road traffic accident. He was hospitalized for 48 days in Changi General Hospital from 12 December 2008 until 29 January 2009 after which he was transferred to Tan Tock Seng Hospital. The victim had right-sided weaknesses that may be permanent along with cognitive and learning disabilities. 18. PW3 applied for a further medical report on the victim from Tan Tock Seng Hospital and he received medical report number OMR 2009-4536 dated 14 April 2009. It was reflected in the said report that the victim was transferred to inpatient rehabilitation centre from 29 January 2009 until 25 February 2009. His post-traumatic amnesia lasted for 62 days and he was fully orientated with 24 hours recall on 12 February 2009. A neurocognitive assessment of the victim on 30 March 2009 confirmed severe impairments in memory and executive functioning. The victim is highly likely to have difficulties in returning to normal schooling. 19. PW3 gave evidence that he subsequently charged the Accused in Court for an offence under Rule 29 Road Traffic Rules i.e. careless driving. 20. The Accused elected not to cross-examine PW 3 on his evidence. PW4 – Tan Yee Zhen 21. The final witness for the prosecution was Master Tan Yee Zhen (“PW4”), the victim in the present case. PW4 testified that he was 14 years old and was born on 30 April 1995. He further testified in December 2008, it was already the school holidays. He gave evidence that he was unable to recall what happened and did not know that he was involved in a road traffic accident. He was only able to recall that when he woke up, he was already in a hospital. At that time, he was unable to remember anything and he was told by his parents what had happened. 22. During his cross-examination, when he was asked by the Accused whether he could recall that he had dashed out suddenly on that day, the latter replied he was unable to recall. 23. When I clarified from PW4 whether he was able to recall being at Bedok North Avenue 1, he responded he was unable to remember. When further clarified as to whether he was able to recall anything about the accident, he replied that he did not know. 24. Before the close of the prosecution’s case, the final witness as stated in the list of witnesses, Madam Tan Siew Kim, the Accused’s wife, was offered to the defence as a witness. The Accused elected not to call her and she was released. Close of Prosecution’s Case 25. At the close of the Prosecution’s case, there were no submissions made by the Accused that he 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 DW1 – Yeo Cheng Khoy 26. The Accused person in the present case is Mr Yeo Cheng Khoy (“DW1”) who was residing at Block 547 Bedok North Street 3, #07-1476, Singapore 460547. He testified that he was not working. 27. The Accused gave evidence that this matter had happened very suddenly and that it was all caused by the other party i.e. the victim (PW4). At about 10.15 am on the day of the incident, he had driven his old van which he had driven for more than 8 years from his home and wanted to drive his wife to Bedok Bus Interchange. He testified that from Bedok North Street 3, he made a right turn to Bedok North Avenue 1. Although the road at Bedok North Avenue 1 was not long, it had five traffic lights. He had stopped at the second traffic light. When the light turned green, he had proceeded. Before he reached the third traffic light, the speed of his van was just more than 30 km/h and he was at third gear. 28. He gave evidence that before passing a bus stop, all of a sudden he saw a young person dashing in front of his right hand corner. The said young person was dashing at a fast speed and he added that he had never in his whole life seen someone dashing at such a fast speed. As he had no choice because this thing happened so suddenly and on seeing that there was no other vehicle from the rear mirror, he pressed the ‘stop signal’. When I asked if he was referring to his hazard lights, he confirmed that he was referring to them. He testified that he tried his best to stop at the left hand side and made an emergency stop. This was because at that time he did not know where the young person was dashing to, at which direction he or she was heading to. He added that no matter what, the said young man still collided into the front of his vehicle at the right hand side. 29. The Accused testified that the impact was great as his windscreen was cracked and the front right hand side of his van was dented. He added that the impact was so great that he could not open the driver’s door and he had some difficulty getting out of the van. He repeated that this showed that the impact was indeed great. When he managed to get out of the van, he saw a young man lying near to his van. He testified that there was another young person who helped to direct traffic. The Accused further testified that he too helped to direct traffic. He gave evidence that the said young person was not PW2 but some other person and this person had left the scene before the police arrived. 30. The Accused testified that about one minute later, PW2 made a U-turn and came to help direct traffic. According to the Accused, PW2 also called the Traffic Police. When the “Traffic Police” (“PW1”) arrived, PW2 handed over the matter to him. PW2 then left the scene. PW1 came to take measurements at the scene. The Accused testified that before the police came, the ambulance arrived and conveyed the young person. The young person was lying on the road but he was still moving. The Accused gave evidence that the young person was carrying a haversack and the paramedics had to cut the straps of the haversack. He gave evidence that the “Walkman” earpiece fell off. The Accused suggested that maybe when the young person was dashing across the road, he was listening to the Walkman or to something else. 31. The Accused gave evidence that the Traffic Police officer then took statements from him and his wife. At about 11 plus am, the measurements were all done and the Accused was told that he could leave. He was told that he was to go to the Traffic Police Department at Ubi Avenue at 12 plus pm to see the investigating officer (“PW3”). While he was on his way to the Traffic Police Department, PW3 called him and asked him to return to the scene at 12 noon. The Accused testified that he arrived before PW3 and he was told to shift his van to the front of the bus-stop so as not to cause a traffic jam. At about 12.30 pm, PW3 asked someone to take photographs and the Accused was told that he could leave. The Accused was asked to leave his vehicle behind and was told that it would be towed away and sent to Paya Lebar for inspection. 32. The Accused testified that subsequently he went to the Bedok Police Station to make a police report (“Exhibit P16”). He also called his insurers NTUC Income. The Accused maintained that all this happened because of the ‘other person’s rash behaviour. He had been driving for 35 years and no accident had ever occurred in his 35 years of driving. The Accused gave evidence that as a result of this accident, he had spent over $3,000 and over 10 days of his time. He added that whenever this matter was adjourned, he suffered mental anguish. 33. During his cross-examination, the Accused testified that he had worked as a hawker but since the renovation of the market, he had not been working since 1 July 2008. The Accused confirmed that on the day of the incident, he was traveling along Bedok North Avenue 1 with his wife beside him. When asked when he first saw the victim, the Accused replied that it happened very suddenly and it was not even ‘a few seconds of time’. He added that he had never seen anyone crossing the road like that and dashing across like that. He reiterated that it happened within a few seconds. When he was asked once again when was the first time he saw the victim, he responded that the road was a dual-carriageway. When he was driving at the left lane at a very slow speed, he moved off after the second traffic light turned green in his favour. 34. When the Accused was asked if the first time he saw the victim was when he was stopping at the traffic light, he replied in the negative. He confirmed that he had proceeded straight when the traffic light was green. When he was asked once again while he was traveling, when was the first time he saw the victim, he replied that it was very sudden and the victim came from the opposite direction. The Accused testified that the victim had come from his right and from the opposite direction and had dashed across. The Accused further testified that he saw a shadow and it was very fast. According to him, no one has ever crossed the road like that. When he was asked if he saw the boy dashing, the Accused replied in the affirmative that he saw it and added that it was a shadow of a figure dashing cross the road. When he was asked if it was daytime, the Accused replied that it was and that the weather was good. What the Accused was asked what shadow he was referring to, he responded that because the victim ran too fast, it was almost like a figure or a shadow. He added that it was a young person. 35. During his cross-examination, the Accused confirmed that he was traveling at 30 to 40 km/h because he was driving at the third gear. When asked further if the shadow was traveling faster than him, the Accused responded that it was running very fast and it was at a diagonal direction. When asked once again if he saw a shadow or the person, he replied that he saw a shadow of a person because it was very fast. It was almost like a racing speed because it was very fast. When asked to clarify what he meant by a racing speed, he replied that it was very fast and hard to describe. When probed further as to whether it was faster than the speed he was traveling, the Accused responded that it was difficult to say because the victim came from the opposite direction in a diagonal manner and one could see how great the impact was and how the van was damaged. 36. During his cross-examination, when the Accused was referred to photograph P2, he confirmed that on the day of the accident, he was able to see both the bus-stops on the left and right hand side of the picture. When asked further if he could see the road divider, he replied in the affirmative and added that it was because he was driving in the left-most lane. He also testified that he was familiar with the road there because he lived there. On that day, he knew that there were bus-stops both on the right-hand side and left-hand side of the road. When asked to clarify whether he actually saw the two bus-stops, he responded that rightfully he should notice the bus-stop on the left hand side and on that day he was looking ahead. He added that even if he were to look at the bus-stop on the right hand-side, he would only need to do so if he were overtaking some other vehicle. When asked further if he was overtaking any vehicle on that day, he responded that the weather was good and traffic was light. He did not overtake anyone and tried his best to stay on the left lane. 37. When asked to confirm that his evidence as he was not overtaking anybody, he was not looking at the bus-stop on the right, the Accused responded that it was because when one drives, one has to look at the road ahead. Sometimes, one may have to look at the right-hand side but unless one needs to overtake other vehicles, then would only would you need to look more on the right hand side. When asked once again whether he was overtaking anyone before the accident, the Accused confirmed he was not as there were no other vehicles. As such, he was not overtaking anyone. When asked once again as he was not overtaking anyone, whether he was looking at the bus-stop on the right, the Accused responded that when one drives, one would look at the road head. Occasionally, one would look at the right hand side. On that day, he saw a bus stopping at the left hand side of the bus-stop. 38. During his cross-examination when the Accused was asked whether when he looked ahead, he would look in front, left and right or only straight ahead, he replied that when he was looking ahead, it would include left hand side and right hand side but as he was on the left most lane i.e. extreme left lane and there were altogether four lanes separated by the centre grass divider, the right hand side of the road would be too wide for him to take notice. When asked further if any traffic or pedestrian on the extreme right would be too wide to notice and he could not see them, he responded that because there was a centre divider which was three feet wide as such the road was rather wide. As such, when he drove he could see the road ahead of him, he also took note of his left and right hand side but he did not see much of the right hand side because the road was rather wide. 39. When the Accused was next asked if he saw anyone standing on the road divider that day, he replied in the negative. When the Accused was asked when was the first time he saw the victim dashing and as to whether he was on his left, right or behind him, he responded that the first time he saw him he should be somewhere in front at the right hand side, diagonally dashing across and that it was very fast. When asked to provide an estimate of the distance between the Accused and the victim, he indicated a distance of about 12.4 metres. He maintained that when he first saw the victim, he was on the front right hand side. When asked if the victim was on the road divider or on the road, the Accused responded that the victim should be from the opposite side of the road. When asked further whether it was what he thought after the accident, the Accused responded that this was what he had seen. When he was asked further if he saw a boy or a shadow, the Accused responded that it was very fast and that it was a figure of a shadow. He added that it was too fast and that he had never seen anyone crossing the road in this manner in his whole life. The Accused gave evidence that the victim was running from the opposite side of the road and he came over and knocked into his van. 40. During his cross-examination when it was put to the Accused that he had knocked into the victim, he disagreed. The Accused was then asked if he ever washed his van and he responded that he had done so but not often. When he was subsequently asked if his hand were to hit the van while washing it, whether there would be a dent, he replied in the negative. He gave evidence that metal was stronger than the human flesh but maintained that the impact was from the boy running at a fast speed. He agreed with the prosecution that the dent would depend on the impact. When asked if the shadow was running faster than the speed he was traveling, he responded that he was not a racer and was unable to judge the victim’s speed. Nevertheless, he maintains that the boy was running at an extremely fast speed. 41. When the charge (“Exhibit C1”) against him was put to him, the Accused disagreed with the charge and stated that if he were driving at the left most lane, at most when they i.e. the victim and the Accused’s van came into contact, the victim would at most just fall. It would not have been possible for his van to be dented to such a state as shown in photograph P7 until it was difficult to open the driver’s door. When it was put to him that the damage as seen in photograph P7 was caused by the Accused driving at a fast speed and him colliding into a pedestrian, the Accused disagreed. Finally, when it was put to him that all he saw was a shadow because he was not keeping a proper lookout ahead, the Accused also disagreed. 42. When the Accused was asked if he wanted to clarify anything in response to the prosecution’s cross-examination, he elected to do so. The Accused testified that there were 5 traffic lights along the said stretch of road. After the second traffic light had turned green, he had proceeded and he was switching from the first gear to the third gear and as such how could his speed be fast at that time. He gave evidence that he was traveling at a speed of 30 km/h. He further testified that he had driven the van for the past 8 years and the speed would only be faster at the fourth gear. 43. The Accused gave evidence that it was wrong for the prosecution to have said that he was driving at a fast speed. Secondly, the accident happened at the right hand side of his van and it was badly dented. It was wrong for the prosecution to have said that his van had knocked down the pedestrian. Thirdly, about the shadow or the figure, he testified that a person may have been running at a very fast speed so that was why he could only see a shadow or a figure. He added that moreover, the victim was young. 44. The Accused gave evidence that the young person could have stopped at the centre divider and waited for the Accused’s van to proceed further before he crossed the road. However, he did not wait and he ran. So it all goes to show that he was running at a very fast speed on that day. The Accused testified that if the side of his van has knocked the pedestrian, the damage or the dent would not have been that severe. However, the pedestrian was running at a very fast speed that day and that explained why the impact was so great and the dent was so bad. He concluded by stating that the incident arose due to the rash and impulsive behaviour of the pedestrian. 45. The Accused elected not to call any other witnesses in his defence. Assessment of Evidence The Law 46. Rule 29 of the Road Traffic Rules states: 29. No vehicle shall be driven or ridden upon a road otherwise than in an orderly and careful manner and with due regard for the safety of others. The sole issue before me was whether on the facts of the present case, the Accused had driven his motor van otherwise in an orderly and careful manner and without due regard for the safety of others on the day in question 47. The victim in the present case i.e. PW4 was unfortunately unable to provide an account of the events that led to the accident. It was clear that this was due to the severe impairment of his memory that he suffered as result of his accident. Nevertheless, on the facts before me, it was not disputed by the Accused that there was a collision between the victim and the Accused’s van. The direct impact from this collision is clearly evident from the Vehicle Damage Report (“Exhibit P14”) in respect of the van GT 3199 C and photographs P7, P8, P10 and P11 as well as the injuries suffered by the victim as reflected in the 2 medical reports from Changi General Hospital (“Exhibit P17”) and Tan Tock Seng Hospital (“Exhibit P18”). 48. It is the prosecution’s case that the Accused had failed to keep a proper lookout when driving his vehicle along Bedok North Avenue 1 and as such had failed to drive in an orderly and careful manner and with due regard to the safety of others. It was submitted that by his own evidence, the Accused cannot state when he saw the pedestrian i.e. PW4. All he could say was that he saw a shadow. If he indeed was keeping a lookout in front, he would have seen the pedestrian crossing or at least running. In addition, the Accused had stated that he would always looks towards the right if the needs arose. It was further submitted that any prudent driver will scan to the front. 49. It was also the prosecution submission that the victim cannot run faster than the Accused’s vehicle. It was also the prosecution’s position that the damage on the van i.e. the dent had clearly showed that he was driving at a fast speed so much that the impact of a human had caused the dent. The prosecution also submitted that a human cannot run that fast, hit a vehicle and cause that kind of dent. 50. In contrast, the Accused’s defence is that the accident was caused by the victim’s rash behaviour because he came at a very fast speed from his front and right hand side and knocked into his van. He submitted that his van was travelling at the left lane and even if his van had indeed knocked the victim, the impact would not have been that great. If the victim had directly collided into the front of his van then his injuries would have been severe. Nevertheless, the accident had happened at the side of his van so he submitted that if he had really knocked him, the victim would at most have fallen down. There would not have been such a great impact. He maintained that the seriousness of the impact from the kind of injuries he has suffered and the number of days he spent in the hospital showed that it was the victim who had knocked into his van. 51. The Accused in his own testimony had stated that when he drove along the said road, he could see the road ahead of him. He also took note of both his left hand side and right hand side. Nevertheless, as there was a centre divider which was about 3 feet wide, he did not see much of his right hand side because the road was rather wide. Further, when he was asked if he was overtaking any vehicle on that day, he responded that the weather was good and traffic was light and that he did not overtake anyone. I note from the photographs P2 to P6 that were taken on the same day after the incident, the accident had occurred along a stretch of a straight road which was dual-carriageway on both sides. By his own account, the traffic was light, the weather was good and he was not overtaking anyone. As such on the facts, I saw no reason for his line of sight to be obstructed such that he was unable to see much from his right hand side as stated by him if he was indeed paying attention to the traffic conditions around him while driving his van. 52. Further, the Accused had stated that it was his practice to check on the right hand side only if he was overtaking. He had stated that he was not overtaking anyone. It was therefore clear to me that the Accused was not paying attention when he drove his motor van along Bedok North Avenue 1 on the day in question as he was only concentrating on what was directly ahead of him instead of also checking his right hand side which was clearly within his line of sight. As such, on the facts, I found that on the day in question the Accused had on 12 December 2008 at about 10.25am driven his motor van, GT 3199 C along Bedok North Avenue 1, otherwise than in an orderly and careful manner and also that he had failed to keep a proper lookout for PW4 who was crossing the road. I also found that it was because the Accused was not paying attention to the right side of the road that he noticed the victim only as a shadow just moments before colliding into him. 53. On the facts, it was clear to me from the damage to the van as well as the injuries suffered by the victim, the Accused must have been driving at a speed faster than the “30 to 40 km/h” as stated by him as he was unable to react in time once he noticed the victim crossing the road. Further, I made a finding of fact that the victim did not dash across the road in a rash manner into the van at a speed faster than the van as alleged by the Accused as I found this version highly improbable. In addition, I could not accept his contention that if he had indeed knocked into the victim, the victim would only have fallen down and not suffered such serious injuries as it defied any logic. Consequently, I rejected the Accused’s evidence that it was the victim who had knocked into his van. 54. 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 careless 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 Accused had failed to raise a reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case. Antecedents and Mitigation 55. The Accused has no prior antecedents. 56. In his mitigation, the Accused stated that he was presently not working. The present matter had caused him to spend $3,000 over. In future, if he needs to get insurance, he would have o spend more money. He stated that he had waste 10 days of his life. He urged the Court to impose a lighter fine. The Penalty 57. The offence of careless driving is punishable with a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both. The Accused is a first offender and the usual tariff for a first offender is a fine. An order of disqualification pursuant to Section 42(1) Road Traffic Act is discretionary and is usually imposed for instances where there are serious personal injuries and/or property damage. In the present case, having regard to the circumstances of the case, I was of the view that a sentence of a fine and a disqualification order is appropriate for the present charge. 58. After a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as well the lack of any mitigating factors or remorse on the part of the Accused, I sentenced the Accused to a fine of $800 in default four days’ imprisonment and disqualified him from holding or obtaining a driving licence for a period of four months for all classes of vehicles.
YEO CHENG KHOY, MALE
57 YEARS OLD (D.O.B: 3.7.1951)
NRIC NO: S0074322D
