Close | Public Prosecutor v Mohd Adam Bin Abdullah [2009] SGDC 514 |
| LTA 3091028332, MA 295/2009 | |
| 31 Dec 2009 | |
| District Court | |
| Ronald Gwee Tiong Kee | |
| LTA Senior Prosecutor Lua Bee Hin, for the prosecution, Mohd Adam Bin Abdullah Acting in person |
Judgment
31 December 2009 District Judge Ronald Gwee 1. Bus lanes are a common sight on our roads. They serve a very useful purpose. Bus lanes help to regulate traffic flow during peak hours, to ensure that a major component of our public transport system, the public buses, enjoys freer and more efficient movement. 2. The vast majority of our motoring public is well aware of how bus lanes operate. Responsible motorists know that they are not allowed to drive within bus lanes during certain, restricted hours. The theoretical aspect of training towards the obtaining of a driving licence in Singapore leads all motorists to a good working knowledge of the Highway Code. 3. The Highway Code familiarizes would-be motorists with the various traffic signs used on our roads. A sample sign for bus lanes is illustrated in the Highway Code. The sign clearly states that such bus lanes are for “BUSES ONLY” during certain stated hours on weekdays. 4. Rule 8(1) of the Road Traffic (Traffic Signs) Rules (the “Rules”) provides that “Except on any Saturday, Sunday or public holiday, no person shall drive a vehicle other than an omnibus, or cause or permit any such vehicle to remain, on a part-day bus lane during the hours of 7.30 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. and 5 p.m. to 8 p.m.” 5. Rule 8(2) of the Rules provides for certain exceptions to the restriction set out in Rule 8(1). Sub-paragraph (a) only applies to ambulances, fire engines or vehicles for police or rescue purposes. Sub-paragraph (b) applies only to cyclists. Sub-paragraph (c) applies to a driver of a motor vehicle “who drives along the bus lane in order to avoid causing danger to any person or a collision with any other vehicle if that driver does not cause or permit the vehicle to remain on the bus lane longer than is necessary to avoid causing such danger or collision”. Sub-paragraph (d) applies only to school buses, private hire buses and excursion buses. Sub-paragraph (e) applies to “any other buses”. 6. The accused, Mohd Adam Bin Abdullah (the “Accused”) claimed trial to a single charge of having driven in such a bus lane along Eunos Link between Kaki Bukit Avenue 1 and Bedok Reservoir Road on 16 December 2008, a Tuesday, at about 5.59 pm. It was not disputed that there was a part-day bus lane at the material location. It was not disputed that the stated date was not a public holiday, and that the stated time fell within the restricted hours set out in Rule 8(1). It was also not disputed that the Accused was the person driving the vehicle (a taxi, registration number SH 8879 L) (the “Taxi”) at the material time. It was also not disputed (after having been established by evidence) that the Taxi had indeed proceeded into a bus stop which was accessible, at that point, by driving into the restricted area of the bus lane. 7. The first Prosecution witness, Mohamed Khir Bin Ma’amin (“PW1”), was at the material time, a traffic warden on duty at the material location. His duties, inter alia, included collecting photographic evidence of vehicles illegally driving in the bus lane during the restricted hours. PW1 gave direct evidence of having seen the Taxi being driven into (and in the process, driving in the bus lane) and out of the bus stop of which he was keeping watch. Photographic evidence (P2) was tendered showing the taxi apparently being driven within the confines of the bus lane. It would later transpire (from oral submissions by the Accused), that the Accused had entered the bus stop area to pick up a passenger. The motive of the Accused in entering the restricted area of the bus lane was not materially relevant to the Prosecution’s case. The Prosecution asserted that the Accused had driven in the bus lane, during restricted hours, in contravention of Rule 8 of the Rules. 8. During cross examination of PW1 by the Accused, it appeared that the Accused was not disputing the material actions asserted by the Prosecution. There was no dispute that the Taxi had indeed been driven in the manner described by PW1. The evidence of PW1 (in particular his eye-witness account) was not shaken during the cross examination. The case the Accused appeared to be setting up was that he was entitled to drive within the bus lane, as he did, and had not contravened Rule 8 of the Rules, and hence had not committed any offence. 9. The Accused tendered a bundle, entitled “Notes Of Evidence (Highway Code Rules & Regulations Exhibits)”, and this was marked D1. D1 contained several pages of material that was not relevant to the charge faced by the Accused. What was material were excerpts apparently from a commercial publication titled “The New Highway Code”. What the Accused sought to argue was that his Taxi was “public transport” and was therefore allowed to use the bus lane during the restricted hours. In support of his contention, the Accused referred to a page in D1 which was titled “Exhibit (1)”. The Accused read out part of the explanation and asserted that “Vehicles other than public transport” were not allowed to use the bus lane during the restricted hours. Hence, his argument further went, as his Taxi was “public transport”, he was not disallowed from using the bus lane. What the Accused failed to do was to read the whole of the explanation which stated that “Vehicles other than public transport buses (omnibuses)” were not allowed to use the bus lane during restricted hours. The words “Vehicles other than public transport” were underlined (it is not clear by whom) but the words “buses (omnibuses)” immediately following, were not. A similar scenario appears on the page titled “Exhibit (4)”. In explaining that other vehicles “Other than public transport buses (omnibuses)” “must avoid” using the bus lane during the restricted hours, the publication again makes it clear that it was the stated class of vehicles (“public transport buses (omnibuses)”) that was not subject to the stated restriction in the use of the bus lane. Again, only the words “Other than public transport” were underlined, and the following words “buses (omnibuses)” were not. 10. Read as a whole, the relevant materials submitted by the Accused (in particular, the aforesaid “Exhibit (1)” and “Exhibit (4)”) clearly did not support the apparent case of the Accused at all. It was clear from the subject text, that the freedom of use of the bus lanes (during the restricted hours) was given to “public transport buses (omnibuses)” and not to the Taxi driven by the Accused. The diagram of a traffic sign denoting a bus lane (as appears on the said “Exhibit (1)”) clearly states “BUSES ONLY”, leaving any reasonable reader of this publication with a clear impression that a vehicle, such as the Taxi driven by the Accused, was not allowed to use the bus lane during restricted hours. This impression is further buttressed by the quoted text in both “Exhibit (1)” and “Exhibit (4)”, read as a whole, as discussed above. 11. The position is even clearer when one again considers the text of Rule 8(1) of the Rules, the relevant portions of which read “Except on any Saturday, Sunday or public holiday, no person shall drive a vehicle other than an omnibus, ….. on a part-day bus lane during the hours of ….. 5 p.m. to 8 p.m.”. The exceptions set out in Rule 8(2) will be discussed further below. 12. At the close of the Prosecution’s case, and after hearing submissions from the Accused, I found that the Prosecution had shown a Prima Facie case that the Accused had at the material date (which was not a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday) and time (which was during the restricted hours) apparently driven in a bus lane. This asserted fact scenario, if proved, amounted to a contravention of Rule 8 of the Rules. I thus called upon the Accused to enter his defence. 13. The Accused elected to remain silent and not give evidence from the witness stand. The Accused understood the consequences of his choice. The Accused did not call any witness. 14. The issue to be decided was whether the Accused had driven on the bus lane at the material time. I found that, so long as the vehicle involved had at any time moved (by means of having been driven) within the confines of the bus lane, demarcated by the solid yellow line (as can be seen in P2), the vehicle can be said to have been driven on the bus lane, and can also be said to have used the bus lane. This would also be the conclusion if the vehicle in question was driven from an outer lane and crossed the demarcating yellow line thus entering the bus lane, and later crossed the yellow line to re-enter the outer lane which the vehicle had previously been driven on. This scenario was what had apparently occurred in the present case. 15. The Accused, in electing to remain silent and calling no other witness, had failed to cast any reasonable doubt on the evidence brought forth by the Prosecution. The conclusion to be reached was therefore that the Prosecution had proven that the Accused had indeed driven the Taxi in the bus lane at the stated date and time at the stated location, during restricted hours. 16. As stated above, Rule 8(2) of the Rules sets out certain exceptions to Rule 8(1). Only Rule 8(2)(c) needs further consideration as the other sub-paragraphs relate to classes of vehicles which are not applicable in the present case: sub-paragraph (a) refers to ambulances, fire engines or any vehicle for police or rescue purposes; sub-paragraph (b) refers to bicycles; sub-paragraph (d) refers to school buses, private hire buses or excursion buses; and paragraph (e) refers to “any other buses”. 17. Rule 8(2)(c) relates to a driver of a motor vehicle “who drives along the bus lane in order to avoid causing danger to any person or a collision with any other vehicle if that driver does not cause or permit the vehicle to remain on the bus lane longer than is necessary to avoid causing such danger or collision”. There was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the driving of the Taxi by the Accused at the material time was under circumstances envisaged by this exception. The Accused had chosen to remain silent and not give evidence. In any event, even if there was a need to conclude why the Accused had driven along the bus lane, it appeared that the Accused had driven in the bus lane in order to pick up a passenger. It could not have been said that in doing so, he was avoiding the causation of any danger or a collision with any other vehicle. The very act of a vehicle (other than a bus) driving into and out of the bus stop as the Accused appeared to have done, may itself have been a potentially dangerous move. 18. In the final analysis, the evidence against the Accused was overwhelming. The Accused chose to remain silent. It was clear that the Prosecution had proven its case on the amended charge against the Accused beyond a reasonable doubt. I therefore found the Accused guilty and convicted him accordingly. The Prosecution indicated that the Accused had no previous antecedents. The Accused had nothing to submit in mitigation. 19. The usual punishment for such an offence would be a fine. The maximum fine that could be imposed for a first offender was $1,000. I imposed a fine of $600, in default 3 days imprisonment. This was a lenient sentence, in the circumstances, considering that the Accused had claimed trial to a charge to which there was no defence, on the facts of the case. The Accused did not pay the fine, and served a default sentence of 3 days imprisonment. The Accused filed an appeal against conviction and sentence, but only after having served this default sentence.
