District Court of Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Tan Phui Moi
[2021] SGDC 193

Criminal Law – Statutory Offences – Road Traffic Act – Section 65(a)

Evidence – Proof of evidence – Onus of Proof

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing – Sentencing – Principles

[LawNet Editorial Note: An appeal to this decision has been filed in MA 9137/2021/01.]

8 September 2021

District Judge Edgar Foo:

Introduction/Background

1 Mdm Tan Phui Moi (“the Accused”), a 54-year-old female Chinese Singapore Citizen had claimed trial to the following charge:

You … are charged that on 6 September 2018 at or about 12.30 p.m., at the signalized cross junction of Eunos Link and Kaki Bukit Avenue 1, Singapore, did ride motorcycle bearing registration number FBJ6004Z, in a manner without due care and attention, to wit, by failing to keep a proper lookout for oncoming vehicles approaching from your left (along Eunos Link towards Bedok Reservoir Road), while performing a discretionary right turn from Eunos Link into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1, on a traffic green light signal (without right turn green arrow), thus resulting in a collision with motor car bearing registration number SLS9335H, which was proceeding straight from your left along Eunos Link on green light signal in favour of the said motor car, which had the right of way, thus you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 65(a) of the Road Traffic Act, Chapter 276.

2 The punishment prescribed under section 65(a) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276) was a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both. Section 42 of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276) also stipulated that the court before which a person was convicted of any offence in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle may order that person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for life or for such period as the court may think fit.

3 At the conclusion of the trial on 10 June 2021. I found the Accused guilty and I convicted her of the said charge. After hearing the Prosecution’s submission on sentence and the Accused’s mitigation plea, I imposed a fine of $800 and I also ordered that the Accused be disqualified from driving all classes of vehicles for a period of 4 months.

4 The Accused, being dissatisfied with my decision, had filed her Notice of Appeal against the conviction and sentence. I hereby set out my reasons for my conviction and sentence.

Parties’ evidence and exhibits

Prosecution’s evidence and exhibits

5 The Prosecution had called a total of 7 witnesses in their case against the Accused:

No.	Witness	Role	Marking given to witness
1	SGT (3) Muhammad Masri Bin Mohd Yusof	Patrol Officer from Traffic Police who had responded the accident	PW1
2	SGT (2) Muhammad Sulaiman Bin Ramli	Patrol Officer from Traffic Police who had responded to the accident	PW2
3	Liew Ka Song	Witness	PW3
4	Ho Koon Ngam	Victim (driver of SLS 9335 H)	PW4
5	Ong Siok Bee	Victim (pillion rider of FBJ 6004 Z)	PW5
6	SSGT Muhammad Rizwan Bin Kamaludin	Investigation Officer from Traffic Police	PW6
7	Wong Miao’En Grace	Senior Forensic Scientist from Health Sciences Authority	PW7

6 In addition to the 7 witnesses, the Prosecution had also tendered a total of 23 exhibits in support of their case against the Accused:

No.	Description of Exhibit	Marking given to exhibit
1	First Information Report – G/20180906/0097	P1
2	Sketch Plan of Accident Scene – Junction of Kaki Bukit Ave 1 and Eunos Link	P2
3	Vehicle Damage Report – SLS 9335 H	P3
4	Vehicle Damage Report – FBJ 6004 Z	P4
5	NP 323 – Acknowledgement Slip for SD card (PW4)	P5
6	NP 323 – Acknowledgement Slip for SD Card (PW3)	P6
7	PW2 First Police Officer’s Accident Report [Form A]	P7
8	PW2’s Patrol Log Sheet	P8
9	In-Car Camera Footage from PW3’s vehicle [File Name: 2018_09_06_13_12_00]	P9
10	In-Car Camera Footage from PW4’s vehicle (SLS 9335 H) [File Name: 21420061]	P10
11	PW4’s Report of Traffic Accident – T/20180906/2112	P11
12	Medical Report of PW4	P12
13	Vehicle Registration Details of SLS 335 H	P13
14	Photograph from PW4’s handphone [File Name: 2020-12-17-12-12-17 (1)]	P14
15	Photograph from PW4’s handphone [File Name: 2020-12-17-12-12-17]	P15
16	Video from PW4’s handphone [File Name: 2020-12-17-12-10-46.mp4]	P16
17	Video from PW4’s handphone [File Name: 2020-12-17-12-11-19.mp4]	P17
18	Video from PW4’s handphone [File Name: 2020-12-17-12-11-41.mp4]	P18
19	Video from PW4’s handphone [File Name: 2020-12-17-12-11-56.mp4]	P19
20	Medical Report of PW5	P20
21	LTA Junction - Eye Camera Footage	P21
22	Medical Certificate of Accused	P22
23	PW7’s Health Sciences Authority Report – LAB No. FC-2041-00192-A	P23
24	Report of a Traffic Accident – NP 401	P24

7 In the present case, it was clear from the evidence that there was a traffic accident at the signalized cross junction of Eunos Link and Kaki Bukit Avenue 1 between the motorcycle FBJ 6004 Z (“the Accused’s motorcycle”) which was ridden by the Accused and the motor car SLS 9335 H (“PW4’s car”) which was driven by PW4 . At the time of the accident, the Accused also had PW5 who was riding pillion on her motorcycle.

8 The Prosecution’s evidence could be summarised as follows: -

PW1 – SGT (3) Muhammad Masri Bin Mohd Yusof

9 PW1 was a patrol officer with the Traffic Police. On 6 September 2018, PW1 was on 2-wheeler duty with PW2 and they were patrolling the eastern side of Singapore when they received the First Information Report (Exhibit P1) on the accident and they were despatched to the accident site^{[note: 1]}. I noted that Exhibit P1 was a 999 call and the time and date of the call was 12.33 pm on 6 September 2018^{[note: 2]}.

10 When PW1 and PW2 arrived at the accident site, they saw A’s motorcycle and PW4’s car. PW1 then went on the prepare the sketch plan of the accident site (Exhibit P2) and he also put up the Damage Report to PW4’s car (Exhibit P3) and the Damage Report to the Accused’s motorcycle^{[note: 3]}.

11 As for PW4’s car, PW1 noted that the front of the car was crumpled and cracked, and the windscreen was also broken^{[note: 4]}. As for the Accused’s motorcycle, PW1 noted that the front tyre of the motorcycle was twisted, the back-number plate was dented, the motorcycle seat was detached, and the exhaust pipe was also detached^{[note: 5]}.

PW2 – SGT (2) Muhammad Sulaiman Bin Ramli

12 PW2 was PW1’s partner on the date of the accident. When he arrived at the accident site with PW1, PW1 asked him to check on the casualties^{[note: 6]}. PW2 saw 3 ambulances at the accident site. There were 3 ambulances for 3 injured parties: the Accused, PW5 and PW4. PW2 said that all 3 of them were injured but they were not suffering from life-threatening injuries^{[note: 7]}.

13 PW2 went to one ambulance and spoke to PW5. PW2 managed to obtain PW5’s particulars from PW5. PW2 then went to speak to the Accused who was being attended to by a medic from another ambulance, The Accused told PW2 that she could not remember what had happened during the accident^{[note: 8]}.

14 After PW2 had spoken to both the Accused and PW5, he did some on-site investigation and he also spoke to PW3 who had witnessed the accident. PW3 was driving his tow-truck and he was stationary on the 3^rd lane at the traffic light junction along Ubi Avenue 2 when he witnessed the accident^{[note: 9]}.

15 PW3 told PW2 that he saw PW4’s car driving from his left to his right when the Accused’s motorcycle suddenly cut across the junction from Eunos Link to turn into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1. When the Accused was in the midst of making a right turn, PW4’s car hit into the Accused’s motorcycle^{[note: 10]}.

16 PW2 also testified that other than PW3, there was another witness by the name of Taloy Joel^{[note: 11]}. PW2 said that a passer-by had given him Taloy Joel’s particulars and the passer-by had told PW2 that Taloy Joel had witnessed the accident. Taloy Joey was no longer present when PW2 arrived at the accident site^{[note: 12]}. PW2 also did not obtain the passer-by’s name and contact particulars^{[note: 13]}.

17 After speaking to PW3, PW2 went on the seize the SD cards from the in-car cameras of PW4’s car and PW3’s tow-truck^{[note: 14]}. PW2 also went on to brief his ops room and he also obtained the investigation officer’s (PW6’s) particulars from the ops rooms^{[note: 15]}. PW2 then went on the brief PW6 of the accident^{[note: 16]}. PW6 told PW2 to screen the 2 vehicles and to hand the 2 SD cards to him which PW2 subsequently did^{[note: 17]}. PW2 also proceeded to file his First Police Officer’s Accident Report (Exhibit P7) on the said accident^{[note: 18]}.

18 PW2 also spoke to PW4 at the scene of the accident and PW4 told PW2 that he was driving straight when the Accused’s motorcycle suddenly made a right turn and he could not brake in time and he hit into the Accused’s motorcycle^{[note: 19]}. PW4 also told PW2 that the traffic light was green in his favour before the collision and that was why he proceeded to cross the traffic junction^{[note: 20]}.

19 PW2 also testified that he had logged down all the events on 6 September 2018 into his patrol log sheet (Exhibit P8)^{[note: 21]}. I also noted the following relevant entries in Exhibit P8:

S/No	Event	Time	Description
41	10-7 #G97 IO Rizwan Ext 6185	1300	At scene, case confirmed. Major road traffic accident involving 1 motorcar and 1 motorcycle, exact location, Eunos Link x Kaki Bukit Ave 1 lane 5. PL211 at scene, V1 and V2 at scene, in the midst of conveyance V1 – FBJ 6004Z – Honda/red/2A S1767128F Tan Phui Moi QDL-2b, 2a, 3 HP - Injuries: Abrasion, upper and lower body, conveyed conscious by AB 211, Sgt Joel to CGH V2 – SLS 9335H Lotus/yellow/car Ho Koon Ngam QDL:2b, 3 HP: Injuries: no visible injuries, conveyed conscious by PA 212 I/C Syimah to CGH V1’s pillion: Ong Siok Bee HP: Injuries: left leg abrasion, right reel and left abdomen laceration, conveyed conscious by AB 223 I/C Bertram
42	Facts	--	Upon arrival, V1, V1’s pillion and V2 in the midst of conveyance. No facts from V1 and V1’s pillion as they could not remember. V2 informed he was on extreme left of 5 lanes along Eunos Link in the direction of Jalan Eunos Lane 5 when it was green in his favour at the junction of Kaki Bukit Ave 1. V2 proceeded straight, suddenly V1 came from his right to left from opposite direction. V2 could not stop in time, hence collided into V1. After impact, V2 could not remember what happened.
43	Witnesses	--	W1: YP6723C Liew Ka Song HP: QDL: 2b, 3, 4, 5 W2: Taloy Joel W1 informed he was on the 2nd left of 5 lanes along Ubi Avenue 2 towards Kaki Bukit Avenue 1when he was stationary due to red light. W1 informed that V2 suddenly came from the left to right and collided into V1who was hit right to left. V1 was making a right turn into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1 W2 was in a rush, no facts from W2

PW3 – Liew Ka Song

20 PW3 was a tow truck driver. On 6 September 2018, PW3 was driving his tow truck along Ubi Avenue 1 and he had stopped at the traffic light junction as the traffic light was red in colour. When PW3 was at the junction, he saw the Accused’s bike turn right in front of him and PW4’s car coming from the left and colliding into the Accused’s motorcycle^{[note: 22]}. PW3 also said that there was no green arrow in the Accused’s favour when she made the right turn into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1. PW3 also said that there was a lorry trailer behind the Accused’s motorcycle when she started to make her right turn but the lorry trailer did not start to move when she started to make her right turn at the traffic junction^{[note: 23]}.

21 After the traffic lights had turned green, PW3 drove to the accident location because he saw 2 persons fall from the Accused’s motorcycle. PW3 had wanted to ensure that no other vehicles collided with the 2 persons, so he drove his tow truck to block off the other vehicles. PW3 then alighted from his tow truck to check on the 2 persons who had fallen off the Accused’s motorcycle^{[note: 24]}.

22 PW3 testified that when the Accused and PW5 fell from the Accused’s motorcycle, PW5 was bleeding from her waist and PW3’s daughter who was with him in his tow truck went to take some tissue from the tow truck and handed the same to PW5^{[note: 25]}. PW3 also said that when the Accused fell from her motorcycle onto the road, she was conscious. A passer-by had wanted to help the Accused, but she did not want anyone to touch her^{[note: 26]}. When told by the Accused that she had fainted after the accident, PW3 said that he was not aware if the Accused had fainted after the accident, but she was conscious when he arrived at the scene. PW3 also said that he had arrived at the scene less than 1 minute after the accident^{[note: 27]}. PW3 said that the Accused was sitting down when he first saw her^{[note: 28]}.

23 PW3 testified that a passer-by had called for an ambulance and both the ambulance and the traffic police arrived a short while later.

24 PW3 also confirmed that he had handed the SD card from the in-car camera of his tow truck to PW2 on the day of accident and that Exhibit P9 was the in-car camera footage from the camera from his tow truck^{[note: 29]}.

25 PW3 also confirmed that he had towed away PW4’s car after receiving confirmation that he could tow the car away. PW3 said that he had towed PW4’s car to PW4’s workshop^{[note: 30]}. PW3 also said that the traffic lights were green in favour of PW4’s car even after the accident as cars were still travelling straight along Eunos Link even after the accident. PW3 was also not certain if any green arrow had come on^{[note: 31]}.

PW4 – Ho Koon Ngam

26 PW4 was the driver of the car that had collided with the Accused’s motorcycle on 6 September 2018. PW4’s car was a yellow Lotus 1.8 bearing registration number plate SLS 9335 H^{[note: 32]}.

27 PW4 testified that on the day of the accident, he was travelling from Seng Kang and he had passed Old Airport Road before turning into Eunos Link and he was heading towards Chai Chee/Upper Changi^{[note: 33]}. PW4 said that he was travelling on the leftmost lane of Eunos Link on the day of the accident and he was travelling straight^{[note: 34]}.

28 PW4 testified that he was driving his car along Eunos Link and he was crossing a green light junction when all of a sudden, something fell onto his car. PW4 testified that he did not know what he had hit into at the time of the accident^{[note: 35]}. PW4 did not see anything when the accident happened. He just felt an impact and something falling on his car. PW4 also said that he did not apply any emergency braking because things happened too suddenly^{[note: 36]}. PW4 did not know that it was a motorcycle which had cut across his path at the time of the accident^{[note: 37]}. PW4 said that he just heard a “pom” sound at the time of the accident^{[note: 38]}. PW4 also did not see the Accused or PW5 when he heard the “pom” sound. The collision had happened in a split second and it was too fast^{[note: 39]}.

29 After the accident, PW4 was unable to control his car and his car hit onto a bollard on the road^{[note: 40]}. When PW4’s car had come to a stop, PW4 removed his seat belt and checked if there was anything wrong with him^{[note: 41]}. PW4 then got out of the car and he realised that he had collided with the Accused’s motorcycle^{[note: 42]}. PW4 also went with help with the accident scene and he also called the police to inform them of the accident^{[note: 43]}.

30 PW4 testified that his car could not move after the accident and it was towed away by a tow truck which happened to be present at the scene. The tow truck towed the car to PW4’s friend’s workshop with the consent of the Traffic Police^{[note: 44]}.

31 PW4 testified that the police and ambulance arrived after the accident and PW4 was advised by the paramedics to go to the hospital to get himself checked as the paramedics were afraid that PW4 could have suffered injuries as a result of the accident^{[note: 45]}. PW4 was taken to Changi General Hospital for treatment but he was not warded at the hospital^{[note: 46]}. PW4 was also not given any medical certificate because he did not require any medical certificate^{[note: 47]}.

32 PW4 also confirmed that PW2 had asked for his driving licence, NRIC and the SD card that was installed in his car on the day of the accident^{[note: 48]}. PW2 had retrieved the SD card from PW4’s car himself^{[note: 49]} and after PW2 had retrieved the SD card, he gave PW4 an acknowledgement for the SD card^{[note: 50]}.

33 With regard to Exhibit P10, PW4 testified that Exhibit P10 showed that he was travelling along the left-hand lane when the accident occurred^{[note: 51]}. PW4 said that the weather was sunny, and it was not raining on the day of the accident^{[note: 52]}. PW4 said that the stretch of road that he was travelling on the day of the accident was a flat stretch of road^{[note: 53]}. PW4 also said that he was not speeding^{[note: 54]} nor was he travelling at a fast speed on the day of the accident^{[note: 55]}. He claimed that he was travelling at a speed of 50 plus km/h at the time of the accident^{[note: 56]}.

34 After the accident, PW4 proceeded to lodge a police report on the accident (Exhibit P11)^{[note: 57]}.

35 I also noted that the Accused, during her cross-examination of PW4, had informed the Court that she had seen PW4’s car when it was far away and it had taken PW4 3.2 seconds for him to reach the point where the Accused was making her right turn^{[note: 58]}. The Accused had also said that when she was waiting to make her right turn at the traffic junction, she saw PW4’s car travelling at high speed at the right most lane of Eunos Link. The right most lane was blocked by car which were trying to make a right turn. The Accused that she saw PW4’s car stop behind the cars which were trying to turn right. At the same time, the Accused saw that the 3^rd and 4^th lane was safe for her to make a right turn and she proceeded to make her right turn. When she was making her turn, PW4’s car cut out from the right lane without any signal. As the Accused was on a motorcycle, she could not reverse, and she had to move forward. The cars in the 3^rd and the 4^th lane did not hit her. However, PW4’s car hit onto her motorcycle when her motorcycle was in the 5^th lane while she was making her right turn^{[note: 59]}.

36 During cross-examination, PW4 testified that:

(a) The traffic light was green in his favour when he was crossing the traffic junction^{[note: 60]}.

(b) PW4 was very familiar with the stretch of road where the accident happened as he would pass by that stretch almost every day as his office was at Upper Changi/Chai Chee^{[note: 61]}.

(c) PW4 would wear glasses whenever he drove his car as he was suffering from myopia and astigmatism^{[note: 62]}.PW4 also said that he was not suffering from any form of eye disease at the time of the accident^{[note: 63]}. PW4 also said that he was not ill, and he was not suffering from any medical condition which had rendered him unfit to drive on the day of the accident^{[note: 64]}.

(d) As for PW4’s car, PW4 said that his car was a 5-gear manual car. PW4 also said that he was familiar with and able to handle his car because he drove his car every day^{[note: 65]}.

(e) PW4 was also not looking at his handphone or making any telephone calls at the time of the accident^{[note: 66]}. PW4 also said that while his car radio was turned on at the time of the accident^{[note: 67]}, the volume of the radio was not so loud as to affect his driving on the day of the accident^{[note: 68]}. PW4 said that the volume of his car radio was set at 7 or 8 out of 20 at the time of the accident^{[note: 69]}.

(f) PW4 also disagreed with the Accused’s suggestion that he was not concentrating on the road condition at the time of the accident^{[note: 70]}. PW4 said that on the day of the accident, he was paying attention to the cars on the road as well as the traffic signals^{[note: 71]}.

(g) PW4 also said that after the accident, he got out of his car and he went to help the Accused retrieve her shoes and he also asked the Accused if she was OK, but she did not answer him. After the SCDF and the ambulance arrived, PW4 helped to remove away the objects that were in the way^{[note: 72]}. PW4 said that he also spoke to the SCDF and police officers who were at the scene^{[note: 73]} but he did not see or speak to any of the reporters at the scene^{[note: 74]}.

(h) PW4 also said that when he was crossing the traffic junction where the accident happened, he was only travelling on 3^rd gear and he was not accelerating when he was crossing the traffic junction^{[note: 75]}. PW4 said that he knew he was approaching a traffic junction at that time and that was why he did not accelerate, and he had taken his foot off the accelerator to slow down^{[note: 76]}.

(i) PW4 also reiterated that he did not change lanes while he was travelling along Eunos Link until where the accident happened and he had always been travelling on the 5^th lane of Eunos Link since he moved to Eunos Link from Old Airport Road^{[note: 77]}. PW4 also said that Exhibit P10 clearly showed that he had been travelling on the leftmost 5th lane when he was travelling along Eunos Link^{[note: 78]}.

(j) PW4 said that when he was travelling along Eunos Link, that there were other vehicles on the road, which were to his side and ahead of him^{[note: 79]}. PW4 also said that he did not see the Accused make the right turn because her motorcycle had come out and cut across his path suddenly^{[note: 80]}.

PW5 – Ong Siok Bee

37 PW5 was the younger adopted sister of the Accused^{[note: 81]}. On 6 September 2018, PW5 was riding as a pillion on the Accused’s motorcycle when the accident happened^{[note: 82]}. PW5 testified that the accident happened too suddenly, and she suffered injuries to the left side of her body, and she was bleeding profusely as a result of the accident^{[note: 83]}. After the accident, PW5 was warded at the hospital for 20 weeks and she had to undergo 2 surgeries for her injuries. PW5 was also given medical leave for 3 months. PW5 testified that as a result of the accident, she had suffered injuries to her right foot, numerous scratches to her left thigh, the left side around her waist was also badly injured and she had developed a very deep scar in that area^{[note: 84]}.

38 PW5 said that when the Accused was waiting at the traffic junction to turn into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1, the traffic lights were green in favour of the traffic travelling along Eunos Link. There was also no green arrow on when the Accused was waiting to turn into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1 at the traffic junction^{[note: 85]}.

39 PW5 testified that when the Accused started to make her turn into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1, PW5 had looked around and she did not see any oncoming traffic when the Accused was making the right turn^{[note: 86]}. PW5 also said that the traffic light was still green in favour of the oncoming traffic when the Accused made her right turn and there was no red arrow sign on^{[note: 87]}.

PW6 – SSG Muhammad Rizwan Bin Kamaludin

40 PW6 had been a police officer for the past 10 years and he was attached to the Traffic Police Investigation Branch for the last 4 years. PW6’s job scope included performing investigative duties on road accidents in Singapore^{[note: 88]}.

41 On 6 September 2018, PW6 was the duty investigation officer when he received a call from the patrol officer who had attended the traffic accident between PW4’s car and the Accused’s motorcycle. The traffic accident had occurred at the Eunos Link/Kaki Bukit Avenue 1 traffic junction^{[note: 89]}.

42 PW6 confirmed that Exhibit P1 was the First Information Report of the accident. They had received a “999” call and Exhibit P1 was generated by the “999” call and assigned to PW6 as he was the next duty investigation officer in line^{[note: 90]}.

43 Upon receiving Exhibit P1, PW6 enquired with the police officer who was at the accident site on who were the parties involved, how severe were the injuries to the victims and the facts of the case. PW6 did not go down to the scene on the actual day of the accident^{[note: 91]}.

44 PW6 also clarified that Exhibit P11 was PW4’s Report of Traffic Accident which was lodged with the police. PW6 said that whenever a party who was involved in an accident was taken to hospital, that party would be advised by the officers at the accident scene to make a police report as soon as possible. In the present case, PW4 had lodged Exhibit P11 at Kampong Ubi NPP and he had given brief details of the accident in Exhibit P11^{[note: 92]}.

45 Based on PW6’s investigation, PW6 determined that PW4 was driving his car along Eunos Link towards Jalan Eunos in the direction of the PIE and the Accused was riding her motorcycle along Eunos Link towards Hougang Avenue 3^{[note: 93]}.

46 PW6 also obtained footages of the accident. One of the footages (Exhibit P9) was obtained from PW3 who had witnessed the accident from the opposite side of the road. PW6 also obtained video footages from LTA (Exhibit P21) and PW4’s car (Exhibit P10)^{[note: 94]}. PW6 testified that Exhibits P9 and P10 were seized from the scene of the accident by PW2 and handed to PW6 at the Traffic Police Headquarters. PW6 had applied for a copy of Exhibit P21 from the LTA^{[note: 95]}. Exhibit P21 did not capture the accident but it showed that the traffic light was green in PW4’s favour when the accident happened^{[note: 96]}.

47 PW6 also obtained photographs and video recordings from PW4’s handphone (Exhibits P14 to P18) and he also applied for the medical reports on PW4 (Exhibit P12) and PW5 (Exhibit P20) from the hospital. PW6 also obtained an HSA report (Exhibit P23) on the speed of PW4’s car at the time of the accident^{[note: 97]}.

48 PW6 also testified that he had generated Exhibit P24 which is the Report of a Traffic Accident on 17 May 2019. The purpose of generating Exhibit P24 was to notify the Accused that charges were being preferred against her for this case^{[note: 98]}.

49 During cross-examination, PW6 testified as follow:

(a) PW6 had investigated the speed of PW4’s car at the time of the accident because he was directed by the Prosecution to look into the matter^{[note: 99]}.

(b) Based on his investigation, PW4 had right of way at the time of accident but he was unable to determine the speed that PW4 was travelling at until he was directed by the Prosecution to do so^{[note: 100]}. PW6 also said that before the Accused could execute her discretionary right turn, she would have to ensure that she gave way to oncoming traffic which had right of way^{[note: 101]} and that the Accused could turn right when it was safe for her to do so and there was no oncoming traffic^{[note: 102]}.

(c) PW6 also said that Exhibit P23 showed that speed of PW4’s car was over the speed limit at the time of the accident^{[note: 103]}.

(d) PW6 also said that the investigation by the attending police officer at the scene did not surface any mechanical fault with PW4’s car and PW4 also did not claim that there was any fault to his car’s braking system at the time of the accident^{[note: 104]}. In such a situation, the police would not tow away the vehicle in question and they would advise the parties involved to engage their own towing to tow away their vehicles^{[note: 105]}.

PW7 – Wong Miao’En Grace

50 PW7 was employed by the Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”) and she was attached to the Forensic Chemistry and Physics Laboratory. PW7 had been working with HSA for the past 10 years and her job responsibility was to produce reports for traffic crash reconstruction^{[note: 106]}.

51 PW7 had prepared Exhibit P23^{[note: 107]}. PW7 testified that she had prepared Exhibit P23 after analysing Exhibit P10, which was the video footage taken from PW4’s in-car camera^{[note: 108]}.

52 PW7 had analysed Exhibit P10 and she had found that the average frame ratio of the video in Exhibit P10 was 30 frames per second and she had used that to estimate the speed that PW4 was travelling at the time of the accident^{[note: 109]}. PW7 said that other than analysing Exhibit P10, PW7 also examined the 3D scan of the stretch of road which she had obtained from Singapore Land Authority and she had also visited Eunos Link in order to prepare her report^{[note: 110]}.

53 PW7 had used the lamp posts along Eunos Link which could be seen in Exhibit P10 and the elapsed time to determine the speed that PW4 was driving between each lamp posts along Eunos Link leading up to the accident site^{[note: 111]}.

54 By analysing Exhibit P10, PW7 found that there were 6 lamp posts along Eunos Link before the accident site and PW4’s speed before the accident was as follows^{[note: 112]}:

(a) From lamp post A to B – 56 to 58 km/h;

(b) From lamp post B to C – 79 to 81 km/h;

(c) From lamp post C to D – 88 to 91 km/h;

(d) From lamp post D to E – 89 to 93 km/h; and

(e) From lamp post E to F which was just before the accident site – 84 to 85 km/h.

55 PW7 also testified that based on her analysis of Exhibit P10, it appeared that PW4’s car was generally moving in a straight position when it was travelling along Eunos Link and it did not appear to deviate significantly left or right. PW4’s car also appeared to be travelling along the left side of the road all the time^{[note: 113]}.

Exhibits P9 and P21 – in-vehicle footages from PW3’s tow-truck and the LTA Junction Eye Camera

56 The Prosecution had also tendered the in-vehicle footages from PW3’s tow-truck and the LTA Junction Eye Camera. The 2 footages had been admitted and marked as Exhibits P9 and P21. I had viewed both the footages and I noted the following events which were captured on the footages:

(a) Events captured on Exhibit P9

S/No	Time as shown in Exhibit P9 (the front in-vehicle camera of PW3’s tow-truck)	Event
1	13.12.34	Accused appeared on the right side of the screen. Accused was riding along the 3rd lane which was a non turning lane.
2	13.12.38	Accused stopped in the yellow box to turn into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1. Accused had cut in front of the trailer which was waiting to turn on the 2nd turning lane and she had stopped her motorcycle about ¾ way into the yellow box. At that point of time, the traffic light facing Ubi Avenue 2 was showing red. There was a pickup and a car waiting on the turning lane on Eunos Link to turn into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1
3	13.12.47	Accused proceeded to make her turn into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1. The rest of the vehicles which were waiting at the junction to turn into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1 did not move. At the same time, PW4’s yellow car appeared along Eunos Link on the left side of the screen
4	13.12.49	PW4’s yellow car appeared at the junction and hit into the Accused’s motorcycle. At that time, the traffic light facing Ubi Avenue 2 was still showing red.

(b) Events captured on Exhibit P21

S/No	Time as shown in Exhibit P21 (the LTA Junction Eye Camera)	Event
1	00.00.00	Accused would be seen ¾ way into the yellow box waiting to turn into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1. There were 2 rows of vehicles waiting the turning lanes of Eunos Link to turn into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1. There were cares in the first turning lane and the trailer was the first vehicle on the 2nd turning lane.
2	00.00.05	Accused proceeded to make the turn into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1 just after a black car had crossed the junction. The rest of the vehicles which were waiting at the junction to turn into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1 did not move.

57 At the close of the Prosecution’s case, I was of the view that the Prosecution had made out a prima facie case against the Accused in respect of the charge and I thereby called on the Accused to enter her defence.

Defence’s evidence and exhibits

58 The Accused had decided to take the stand to give her evidence in support of her defence after I had called for her defence. Other than the Accused herself, the Accused did not call any other witnesses to give evidence in support of her defence.

59 In addition, the Accused had also tendered one exhibit in support of her defence:

No.	Exhibit	Marking given to exhibit
1	Google Map printout showing the Eunos Link and Kaki Bukit Avenue 1 junction	D1

60 The Accused’s evidence could be summarised as follows:

DW1 – the Accused

61 The Accused testified that on 6 September 2018, she had travelled from Jalan Eunos to Eunos Link and she had stopped at the junction of Eunos Link and Kaki Bukit Avenue 1^{[note: 114]}. The Accused was planning to go towards Kaki Bukit Avenue 1^{[note: 115]}. The Accused said that while waiting to turn into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1, she did see cars on the 3^rd and 4^th lane on the opposite side of Eunos Link, but the vehicles were very far away. The Accused also did not see PW4’s car^{[note: 116]}. The Accused felt it was reasonably safe to make the right turn to Kaki Bukit Avenue 1 and she slowly made her turn^{[note: 117]}. All of a sudden, while she was making her turn, she saw PW4’s car from the corner of her eye and PW4’s car collided into the Accused’s motorcycle^{[note: 118]}. The Accused was certain that she did not see PW4’s car within her field of vision before the collision^{[note: 119]}. The Accused said that PW4’s car appeared “like a ghost” and hit into her^{[note: 120]}. PW4 was speeding and his speed went up as high as 93 km/h when the speed limit of the road was 50 km/h^{[note: 121]}. PW4 was looking at the cars on his side as he kept looking to his side and he was not looking in front of his car^{[note: 122]}.

62 During cross-examination, the Accused testified that:

(a) She held driving licenses for Class 2A, 2B and 3^{[note: 123]}. The Accused had obtained her Class 2B license on 28 May 1998, her Class 2A license on 11 January 2011 and her Class 3 license on 12 May 1999^{[note: 124]}.

(b) On the day of the accident, the Accused was riding a Honda CB400X motorcycle and the registration number of her motorcycle was FBJ 6004Z^{[note: 125]}. The Accused had been riding the motorcycle since 2014^{[note: 126]}. PW5 was riding as her pillion on the day of the accident^{[note: 127]}. PW5 was the Accused’s adopted sister^{[note: 128]}..

(c) The Accused testified that on the day of the accident, she was not under any medication and she was fit to ride the motorcycle^{[note: 129]}.

(d) The Accused testified that she was travelling along Eunos Link and she was travelling on the 2^nd lane from the right when she reached the Eunos Link/Kaki Bukit Avenue 1 junction before she turned right into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1^{[note: 130]}. I also noted that the Accused had marked on Exhibit P2, the position that she had stopped her motorcycle at the Eunos Link/Kaki Bukit Avenue 1 junction before she turned into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1 as ‘X’^{[note: 131]}. The Accused said that she had stopped at that particular position because she wanted to be further away from the big trailer truck that was waiting to turn into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1^{[note: 132]}. The Accused then waited till there was a safe distance from vehicles coming from Eunos Link to Jalan Eunos on her left side before she proceeded to make her right turn into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1^{[note: 133]}.

(e) The Accused also confirmed that the traffic junction whereby she had made her right turn into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1 was a discretionary right turn junction^{[note: 134]}. The Accused said that before she made her right turn, she saw that there were no vehicles that were within 150 metres approaching the said junction before she started making her right turn. Therefore, the Accused felt that it was safe to make the turn and she proceeded to make the turn^{[note: 135]}. The Accused said she only saw PW4’s car just before the collision while she was making the right turn^{[note: 136]}.

(f) The Accused also confirmed that there was no visible upward or downward slope along Eunos Link^{[note: 137]} and she could see beyond 150 metres^{[note: 138]}. However, the Accused was of the view that there was no need for her to be concerned with vehicles that were further than 150 metres away from the junction^{[note: 139]}. The Accused said that on the day of the accident, she was able to see all the way to the overhead bridge which was marked in Figure 1 of Page 2 of Exhibit 23 and she did see a bus at the overhead bridge on that day^{[note: 140]}. The Accused also said that she could see beyond 800 metres^{[note: 141]}.

(g) The Accused also confirmed that the traffic light was green in PW4’s favour^{[note: 142]}. The Accused also agreed with the Prosecution that from Exhibit P9, she had started making her right turn from the junction at 13.12.47 on Exhibit P9 and the collision had taken place at about 13.12.49^{[note: 143]}.

(h) I also noted that during cross-examination, the Prosecution’s had pointed out the following:

(i) That the actual position that the Accused had stopped her motorcycle which was captured on the video footages was different from the position ‘X’ that she had marked on Exhibit P2^{[note: 144]}.

(ii) The Prosecution also pointed out that the position were the Accused had stopped her motorcycle at the junction was not in the centre of the yellow box and not near the trailer truck but more towards the left side of the yellow box^{[note: 145]}.

(iii) The Prosecution also pointed out to the Accused that she was not travelling on the 2^nd lane from the right before stopping at the junction but that she was travelling on the 3^rd lane from the right which was a non turning lane when she cut into and stopped at the junction^{[note: 146]}.

(iv) The Prosecution also pointed out that the Accused had not formed up in the turning lanes in order to make the right turn^{[note: 147]}.

(v) The Prosecution had also pointed to the Accused that when she started to make her right turn, the car and trailer truck which were on the 1^st and 2^nd turning lane remained stationary when she was making her right turn^{[note: 148]}.

Prosecution’s Case^{[note: 149]}

The law on driving without due care and attention

63 The Prosecution had submitted that the relevant provision which was applicable to the present case was section 65(a) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) (“RTA”), which stated as follows:

Any person drives a motor vehicle on a road without due care and attention is guilty of an offence…

64 As such, in order to prove the charge against the Accused, the Prosecution would have to prove the following:

(a) That the Accused was driving the motor vehicle and it was in motion at the material time, and

(b) The Accused did drive on a road without due care and attention at the material time.

65 In the present case, it was not disputed that the Accused was riding her motorcycle bearing license plate number FBJ 6004 Z at or about 12.30 p.m. on 6 September 2018 along Eunos Link and turning right into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1.

66 However, the Accused had disputed the fact that she was riding her motorcycle without due care and attention at the material time. The Accused had asserted that if the motor car SLS 9335 H which was driven by PW4 was not speeding, she would have made the right turn successfully.

The traffic light configuration at the said junction

67 The Prosecution submitted that the junction of Eunos Link and Kaki Bukit Avenue 1 was a traffic-light controlled junction. The focus in respect of this trial should be for vehicles travelling along Eunos Link towards Hougang Avenue 3 and turning right at the junction to enter Kaki Bukit Avenue 1.

68 There were 2 right turn only lanes along Eunos Link for vehicles turning right into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1 with the other 3 lanes for vehicles going straight towards Hougang Avenue 3. The said junction was a discretionary right turn junction where vehicles could proceed to turn right into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1 when:

(a) The traffic light was green in their favour;

(b) There was no oncoming traffic approaching the said junction; and

(c) If there were no pedestrians crossing the road at signalised crossing at Kaki Bukit Avenue 1.

69 In addition, if traffic light was red for oncoming traffic, a green arrow would light up to allow the vehicles to turn right into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1.

Discretionary right turn

70 In order to make the discretionary right turn, there were 2 factors to consider when approaching such junction. These were defined in Road Traffic Rules (Cap 276, R 20, 1999 Rev Ed):

(a) Positioning of vehicle before making a turn at road intersection or junction

Rule 7 stated that -

“The driver or rider of a vehicle who intends to turn to the right at an intersection or junction of roads shall, before reaching such intersection or junction and as opportunity offers, move into the appropriate lane as indicated by the directional arrows to turn right and any driver or rider of a vehicle intending to turn to the left shall, as opportunity offers, move into the appropriate lane as indicated by the directional arrows to turn left.”

(b) Vehicle making right turn at road intersection or junction

Rule 8 stated that -

“(1) The driver or rider of a vehicle stationary at or approaching a controlled intersection or junction of roads and wishing to turn to the right shall, as soon as the intersection or junction is open to the vehicle, move forward as near as possible to the centre of the intersection or junction and await a safe opportunity to complete the turn to the right.

(2) When turning the driver or rider of the vehicle shall proceed with due regard for the safety of pedestrians crossing the road.”

Video footages admitted as part of the Prosecution’s Case

71 The Prosecution submitted that the 3 sets of video footages tendered by the Prosecution as part of their case clearly showed how the accident took place and that PW4 had the right of way, as the traffic green light signal was in his favour^{[note: 150]}.

Footage from PW4’s vehicle (Exhibit P10)

72 PW4 had testified that he was driving along Eunos Link towards PIE when the accident occurred. PW4 had testified that “as I was driving and crossing this green light junction, all of a sudden, something fell on my car. I didn’t know what it was”^{[note: 151]}. When PW4’s car came to a stop, he realised that he had hit a motorcycle.

73 PW 4 was certain that when he approached the junction of Eunos Link and Kaki Bukit Avenue 1, the traffic light signal was green in his favour before he crossed the junction. Exhibit P10, which was the in-car footage from PW4’s car clearly showed that the traffic light signal was green in PW4’s favour as he crossed the junction before the collision.

Footage from PW 3’s vehicle (Exhibit P9)

74 PW3 had testified that he had stopped at the red traffic light signal at along Ubi Avenue 2 (towards Kaki Bukit Avenue 1) junction of Eunos Link^{[note: 152]}. While waiting for the light to turn in his favour, he witnessed the accident between PW4’s motor car and the Accused’s motorcycle. PW4 thereafter rendered assistance.

75 Exhibit P9, the footage from PW 3’s in-car camera, showed the Accused approaching the junction of Eunos Link and Kaki Bukit Avenue 1, while travelling on lane 3, which was a straight only lane. The Accused then entered the yellow box by cutting in front of the vehicles in lane 1 and 2 and she stopped in the yellow box at a distance away from the vehicles in the 2 lanes waiting to turn right.

76 Immediately after an unknown black car had crossed the junction, the Accused proceeded to complete the right turn into Kaki Bukit Ave 1. It was there that the collision occurred between the Accused’s motorcycle and PW4’s car.

77 The whole incident was captured by Exhibit P9.

Footage from LTA junction eye camera (Exhibit P21)

78 The Prosecution had also tendered a footage from the LTA Junction-Eye camera (Exhibit P21). Exhibit P21 clearly showed the position that the Accused was waiting at before moving off towards the direction of Kaki Bukit Avenue 1. It was clear from Exhibit P21 that the Accused had moved off immediately after the black car had crossed the junction.

Accused’s manner of riding

79 The Prosecution submitted that there were 3 aspects in the way that the Accused had ridden her motorcycle which were the main contributing factors which led to the accident.

(a) Failing to move into appropriate lane to turn right

80 It was very clear from Exhibit P9, that the Accused’s manner of riding her motorcycle was questionable. The Accused had approached the junction of Eunos Link and Kaki Bukit Avenue 1 by riding on lane 3, which was a straight only lane. The Accused should have been on lanes 1 or 2, which were right turn only lanes. This was stipulated in the Road Traffic Rules (Cap 276, R 20, 1999 Rev Ed).

81 During the cross-examination of the Accused by the Prosecution, the Prosecution had asked the Accused which lane she was travelling on before she arrived at the junction of Eunos Link and Kaki Bukit Avenue 1. The Accused told the Court “second lane from the right where I stopped”^{[note: 153]}. When the Prosecution clarified with her as to which lane she was travelling on, the Accused again replied “lane number 2”^{[note: 154]}. After Exhibit P9 was played and she was further crossed examined on this issue, the Accused changed her story to I was forced. I had no choice” due to the long line of cars waiting^{[note: 155]}.

82 The Prosecution also noted that during her re-examination, the Accused clarified that that the manner in which she approached the junction was not an “illegal right turn” but rather “jumping queue”. The Accused also went on to add that this had been the practice for many motorcycles for “tens of years” and it was a “acceptable” practice^{[note: 156]}. The Prosecution noted that the Accused seemed to be saying that it was her usual practice to ride on lane 3 (which was a straight lane) and then manoeuvre in front of lanes l & 2 to get to the yellow box ahead of the cars in the first 2 lanes. The Prosecution also pointed out that this version also differed from her response during the initial stages of the cross examination by the Prosecution, where she had testified that she was travelling on lane 2, before approaching the junction.

(b) Failing to form up for right turn

83 Upon approaching the junction on that material day, the Accused could be seen in Exhibit P9 to have positioned her motorcycle in line with the centre divider of Kaki Bukit Avenue 1 and closer to the direction of oncoming traffic.

84 During cross examination by the Prosecution, the Accused was asked to mark out on the sketch plan Exhibit P2 her position where she had been stationary before turning right. The Accused had marked her position as at the start of the yellow box just after the pedestrian crossing at Eunos Link. However after Exhibit P9 was played in Court , the Accused realised that she had marked the wrong position and she attempted to put up various theories as to why she had made a mistake in identifying the location at where she stopped. And after several attempts to get her to focus on the issue at hand, she just said that “It’s just a rough position. I did not say that it’s exact. I’m not lying”^{[note: 157]}.

85 The Prosecution submitted that the Accused clearly knew that she should have positioned herself at the marking which she indicated in Exhibit P2. The Accused’s subsequent response stating that her marking on Exhibit P2 was a “rough position” when confronted with Exhibit P9 was an attempt by her to downplay her culpability.

(c) Completing the discretionary right turn

86 It was clear from the 13.12.47 mark in Exhibit P9 that after the black car had passed the junction, the Accused had started to take off on her motorcycle to complete her turn into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1 and it was at this juncture that the accident occurred.

87 The issue here was whether the defendant had positioned herself to enable her to have a good view of oncoming traffic before completing the turn into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1 and whether it was safe to do so.

88 It is clear from Exhibit P21 that none of the vehicles in the 2 right most lanes along Eunos Link, which were waiting to turn right into Kaki Bukit Ave 1, had moved off from their stationary position except for the Accused.

89 During Prosecution’s cross examination of the Accused, the Accused had testified that she would ensure that the vehicles that were approaching the junction were far away before she made her right turn^{[note: 158]}. The Accused went on to add that the distance between her and the approaching vehicles should be more than 150 meters away before she made her turn. She was also asked if there were any vehicles within 150 meters when she began to make the turn into Kaki Bukit Ave 1. The Prosecution noted that the Accused seemed hesitant to answer the question and gave irrelevant answers^{[note: 159]}. The Accused subsequently answered the question by saying that it was safe for her to make the turn into Kaki Bukit Ave 1^{[note: 160]}.

90 The Prosecution also sought to clarify with the Accused if she had seen the car driven by PW4 approaching the junction before the collision and if she did, at which juncture did she see PW4’s car. The Accused said that she saw PW 4’s car when she was making the turn and approaching Kaki Bukit Ave 1^{[note: 161]}. The Accused was also asked to mark her position on Exhibit P2 when she saw PW4’s car and the Accused indicated that she saw PW4’s car when she was about to pedestrian crossing of Kaki Bukit Avenue 1.

91 The Prosecution also pointed out that they had the Accused 3 times as to whether she had noticed PW4’s car approaching the junction before she moved off from her stationary position to enter Kaki Bukit Avenue 1 but the Accused had not answered the question and she just said that “I cannot answer”^{[note: 162]}.

92 The Accused was also asked to estimate from the stationary position she was in, at the middle of the yellow box, how far she could see oncoming traffic. The Accused had testified that she could see right up till the overhead bridge^{[note: 163]}.

93 The Prosecution also showed the Accused a screenshot of Exhibit P9 (at the 13:12:47 mark) where PW4’s car could be seen, on the left of the screen, just as the Accused was moving off from stationary position but the Accused had refused to comment on the screenshot.

94 The Prosecution submitted that if the Accused could see right up till the overhead bridge for oncoming traffic, there was no reason why she could not have spotted PW4’s approaching the junction. This was even more so when the travel path of PW4 was at all times closer to the left side of the road as evident from Exhibit P10 and by PW7’s testimony^{[note: 164]}.

95 Based on the Accused’s response and the manner in which she had given evidence during cross examination, Prosecution was of the view that the Accused failed to check for oncoming traffic and whether it was safe for her to complete the right turn. The Accused only realised the presence of PW4’s car when she had almost completed the turn into Kaki Bukit Ave 1, which by then, was unfortunately too late.

Issue in relation to PW4’s speed

96 As a matter of completeness, the Prosecution had obtained a speed analysis report from HSA to determine PW4’s speed when PW4 was approaching the junction just before the collision.

97 Based on the HSA Report (Exhibit P23) which was put up by PW7. PW4 was noted to be travelling at a speed of 84 to 85 km/h^{[note: 165]}, just before the collision occurred.

98 The Prosecution submitted that the issue of the speed of an oncoming vehicle was dealt with in PP v Ching Teng Joo [2019] SGDC 166 by DJ Chay Yuen Fatt. DJ Chay had stated in his judgment that an accused should not have made a discretionary turn if it was dangerous for him to do so. DJ Chay at [29] had stated the following:

“29 I therefore find that the victim was not speeding and certainly not more than 100 km/h. In any case, regardless of the victim’s speed, the accused should not have made the discretionary turn and it was dangerous for him to do so. If indeed the victim was travelling at a very fast speed, it would have been even more dangerous for the accused to execute the discretionary turn into the victim’s path. The accused’s argument that the victim was speeding therefore does not further or assist his defence.”

99 The Prosecution also highlighted that in the recent case of PP v Yap Kok Hua (“Yap Kok Hua”)^{[note: 166]}, the accused in that case had made a discretionary right turn without giving way to oncoming traffic which had a right of way when the collision occurred. In Yap Kok Hua, the involved party had the right of way and was travelling at a speed of 92 km/h to 97 km/h.

100 In his Brief Grounds of Decision, DJ Victor Yeo had referred to the conduct of the accused who had made the discretionary right turn and he had said that “the duty must be on the accused when making the right turn at the traffic junction to give way to oncoming vehicles that had the right of way, and he should not attempt to make the right turn when it is clearly unsafe to do so”.

101 DJ Yeo went on to add that, “It is trite law that where the conduct of the victim or third parties, negligence or otherwise, has materially contributed to the outcome for which the offender is being charged, but has no bearing on the culpability of the offender, it should not affect the sentence to be imposed. I did not think that the culpability of the accused could be said to be reduced in this case as quite clearly the accused through his own negligent conduct, had caused serious collision with resulted in the death of one his passengers and caused grievous injuries to the three other passengers through no fault of theirs. To that extent, having regard to the culpability of the accused, I am not inclined to give much weight to the conduct of the involved party as a mitigating factor in this case.”.

102 In respect of the same case, a suit was brought upon by one of the victims for the assessment of liability. In Ting Jun Heng v Yap Kok Hua and another [2020] SGHC 211, Aedit Abdullah J had stated the following at [10]:

“10 The greater degree of responsibility certainly lay on the 1^st Defendant, which was not disputed by his counsel. The 1^st Defendant was executing a discretionary turn, with the traffic lights in favour of the oncoming traffic. Priority lay with those vehicles going straight; it was incumbent upon the 1^st Defendant to keep a proper lookout, and exercise prudent judgment in executing the turn. If there was any doubt about whether it was safe, the 1^st Defendant should have either waited for oncoming traffic to clear, or for it to be stopped and the right turn green arrow traffic lights to come on. He, however, failed to do so, and just followed the vehicle next to him, which turned, but which fortunately did not get hit by or hit oncoming traffic.

11 The 2^nd Defendant’s counsel referred to the changing position of the 1^st Defendant as to what the 1^st Defendant allegedly saw and did at the junction. It is sufficient to note that at this point that the inference from the video evidence showing the movement of the relevant vehicles clearly indicated that there was want of due care, and that the 1^st Defendant failed to keep a proper lookout. The primary responsibility for the collision could not be at all laid at the door of the 2^nd Defendant’s speeding.”

103 Thus, in this case, the Prosecution submitted that a greater degree of responsibility lied with the Accused as she was executing a discretionary right turn when the traffic lights were in the favour of oncoming traffic, which in this case was the car driven by PW4.

104 The Prosecution also pointed out that the Traffic Police was also investigating PW4’s manner of driving prior to the collision and PW4’s matter would be dealt with separately.

Conclusion

105 The Prosecution submitted that they had tendered sufficient evidence at trial to prove that the Accused had in fact ridden her motorcycle on the material date and time, without due care and attention, by failing to keep a proper lookout for oncoming vehicles before making a discretionary right turn. As a result of the accident, the Accused, PW4 and PW5 were injured.

106 As such, the Prosecution submitted that they had proven their case against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt and they urged me to convict the Accused accordingly.

Defence Case^{[note: 167]}

107 The Accused’s defence was that she had kept a proper lookout for oncoming vehicles prior to making the right turn from Eunos Link into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1 on the day of the incident on 6 September 2018.

108 It was the Accused's defence that she had stopped at the said junction and had waited before she made her turn. When the Accused decided to proceed to turn, it was all clear and there were no cars which were coming from the opposite direction. The Accused submitted that there were vehicles in the opposite direction, but these vehicles were more than 150 metres away. The Accused also did not see PW4's vehicle when she made the turn.

109 The Accused submitted that PW4 was speeding and he had collided with the Accused’s motorcycle. Evidence adduced at the trial showed that PW4 was travelling at 93 km/h when the road limit on that stretch of the road as 50 km/h. The Accused submitted that even if PW4 had the right of way, it did not give him the liberty to speed and not observe traffic rules and traffic conditions. Furthermore, PW4 did not abide by traffic rules. PW4 was approaching a traffic light junction and he should be slowing down and not speeding towards the traffic light junction.

110 The Accused also submitted that PW4 had testified that he was not looking in front of him when he was driving but instead, he was looking at the cars on his side. This clearly showed that PW4 was not paying attention to the road condition in front of him. The Accused submitted that it was PW4 who did not keep a proper lookout when he was driving.

111 The Accused also submitted that it was PW4 who was speeding, and he had overtaken the vehicles which were in front of him, and he had caused the collision with the Accused. By speeding, PW4 had endangered the safety of other drivers and road users, and he had caused the accident.

112 The Accused submitted the accident was not caused by the Accused failing to keep a proper lookout, but it was caused by PW4 violating traffic rules by speeding and not slowing down when approaching the traffic junction.

113 In view of the above, the Accused urged me to find her not guilty of the charge.

My findings and decision

The law and elements of the charge

114 The Accused faced one charge under section 65(a) of the Road Traffic Act of riding her motorcycle without due care and attention, to wit, by failing to keep a proper look-out while performing a right turn from Eunos Link into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1, on a green light signal only and resulting in a collision with PW4’s car which was travelling straight from the opposite side of the road and had right of way.

115 I agreed with the Prosecution that in order to prove the charge against the Accused, the Prosecution would need to prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

(a) That the Accused was riding her motorcycle at the material time;

(b) That the Accused had ridden her motorcycle without due care and attention; and

(c) That had resulted in the collision.

116 In the present case, it was not disputed that the Accused was riding her motorcycle at the material time and that she was involved in the collision with PW4’s car at the relevant time. The only dispute between the parties was whether the Accused had ridden her motorcycle without due care and attention.

117 The Prosecution’s position was that the Accused had ridden her motorcycle without due care and attention while the Accused had denied that she had ridden her motorcycle without due care and attention and that the collision was caused by PW4 who was speeding.

Undisputed facts

118 In the present case, the undisputed facts were as follows:

(a) On 6 September 2018 at around 12.30 PM, the Accused was riding her motorcycle along Eunos Link in the direction of Hougang Avenue 3 with PW5 as her pillion and she was planning to go to Kaki Bukit Avenue 1.

(b) When the Accused reached the Eunos Link/ Kaki Bukit Avenue 1 traffic junction, she stopped at the said junction before she proceeded to make a discretionary right turn into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1.

(c) While the Accused was making her right turn into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1, she was involved in a collision with a car which was driven by PW4.

(d) PW4 was driving along Eunos Link in the direction of Jalan Eunos when he was involved in the collision with the Accused’s motorcycle at the Eunos Link/Kaki Bukit Avenue 1 traffic junction.

(e) The Eunos Link/Kaki Bukit Avenue 1 traffic junction was a traffic-light controlled junction and the traffic light was green in favour of PW4 at the time of the accident. This was confirmed by the Accused, PW3, PW5 as well as the video footages tendered by the Prosecution

(f) Eunos Link in the direction of Hougang Avenue 3 was 5 lane road. There were 2 right turn only lanes for vehicles turning right into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1 and the other 3 lanes were straight only lanes for vehicles travelling straight towards Hougang Avenue 3.

(g) It was clear from the evidence that the Accused had made a discretionary right turn at the Eunos Link/Kaki Bukit Avenue 1 junction just before the collision took place. When the Accused made her right turn towards Kaki Bukit Avenue 1, the traffic light was in favour of PW4 and the green arrow had not come on. It was also clear to me that PW4 had the right of way when he was at the traffic junction.

(h) After the collision, the Accused, PW5 and PW4 suffered injuries and the Accused, PW4 and PW5 were all ferried to hospital by ambulances.

Whether the Accused had ridden her motorcycle without due care and attention at the traffic junction

119 Having perused all evidence presented by both parties, I was of the view that the Accused had ridden her motorcycle without due care and attention and that had resulted in the collision between her motorcycle and PW4’s car. My reasons were as follows:

(a) The Accused had failed to form up for the right turn at the traffic junction:

(i) The Accused had testified that she was riding along the 2^nd turning lane along Eunos Link before she stopped at the Eunos Link/Kaki Bukit Avenue 1 junction in order to turn into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1. The Accused had also marked out the position where she had stopped when she was at the said junction on Exhibit P2 and she had indicated on Exhibit P2 that she had stopped her motorcycle just after the first turning lane^{[note: 168]}.

(ii) However, the video footages clearly showed that the Accused was not telling the truth. The video footages showed that the Accused was travelling on the 3^rd lane straight lane on Eunos Link and she had cut into the traffic junction almost ¾ way into the junction just to get ahead of the vehicles which were already queueing in the first 2 turning only lanes on Eunos Link.

(iii) The video footages also confirmed that the position where the Accused had stopped her motorcycle was different from the position that was marked out by the Accused on Exhibit P2.

(iv) The video footages also clearly showed that the Accused had breached Rule 7 of the Road Traffic Rules in that she had failed to stay within the appropriate lanes for turning and she had also failed to queue behind the rest of the vehicles which were waiting in the 2 turning only lanes on Eunos Link to turn into Kaki Bukit Avenue.

(v) It was also clear to me that the Accused had also failed to comply with Rule 8 of the Road Traffic Rules in that she had failed to stay at the centre of the intersection and she had gone way beyond the centre of the yellow box and towards the left side of the intersection

(vi) I also agreed with the Prosecution that the Accused had shown blatant disregard for the traffic rules as she had remarked during her re-examination that her manner of riding was not illegal and that she was merely “jumping queue” and that there was nothing wrong with the way she rode as it had been the practice of motorcycles for “tens of years” and it was “acceptable” for them to cut in front of vehicles waiting on a turning lane from a straight lane^{[note: 169]}.

(b) The Accused had failed to observe PW4’s car before making her right turn:

(i) I noted that during her cross-examination of PW4, the Accused had informed me that she had noticed PW4 driving at a very fast speed when she was waiting to make her right turn at the intersection. The Accused had said that PW4 was travelling on the right most lane of Eunos Link which was a turn only lane. The Accused also said that she saw PW4 stop behind the row of cars waiting to turn right into Ubi Avenue 2. The Accused then said that she noticed that the 3^rd and 4^th lanes were safe for turning and that was why she decided to make her right turn into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1. The Accused then said that as she was making her right turn into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1, she saw PW4’s car cut out of the rightmost lane without any signal and PW4’s car hit into her motorcycle when she was near the leftmost lane of Eunos Link.

(ii) However, in her examination in chief, the Accused changed her story and she said that she did not see PW4’s car at all before she started making her right turn into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1 and PW4’s car came out of the blue and hit into her motorcycle. The Accused had testified that she was able to look out for traffic on the opposite direction of Eunos Link as that stretch of the road was relatively flat and she could see the traffic on that stretch of the road from far away. The Accused also said that just before she made her right turn, she had observed that there were no oncoming traffic all the way up to the overhead bridge^{[note: 170]} (which was more than 150 metres away from the intersection as indicated in Exhibit P23) and that was why she felt safe to make her discretionary right turn. I also noted from the video footages that the Accused had started to make her right turn immediately after an unknown black car had crossed the traffic junction from the opposite side of the road.

(iii) There were clear and material inconsistencies in what the Accused’s had told me during her cross-examination of PW4 and her evidence in chief. As such, I have doubts as to which version was the real version of event.

(iv) I noted that Exhibit P10 had captured PW4 driving in a straight line along Eunos Link before he reached the traffic junction where the collision took place. PW7 had also testified that from her observation of Exhibit P10, PW4 appeared to be driving in a straight line and he was driving on the left side of the road. As such, Exhibit P10 clearly contradicted the Accused testimony when she said that she saw PW4 stopping at the rightmost lane and suddenly cutting out and colliding into her motorcycle.

(v) As regards to the Accused’s version of events as per her evidence in chief, that she did not see PW4’s car along Eunos Link before the collision, I was of the view that this version could not be true given the objective video evidence that was presented by the Prosecution.

(vi) PW4’s car was clearly visible on the left side of the screen in Exhibit P9 at the 13.12.47 mark. At this juncture, it could be seen from Exhibit P9 that PW4’s car was just about to approach the junction where the collision took place. It was also at this particular moment that the Accused decided to make her right turn into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1^{[note: 171]}. The collision between PW4’s car and the Accused’s motorcycle took place about 2 seconds later, which was at the 13.12.49 mark of Exhibit P9^{[note: 172]}.

(vii) PW7 had testified that the estimated speed of PW4’s car was 84 to 85 km/h when it was approaching the traffic junction^{[note: 173]}. This was not disputed by the parties at the trial. Given the estimate speed of 85 km/h, PW4’s car would have travelled a distance of 47.22 metres in the 2 seconds from the time it first appeared on the screen at the 13.12.47 mark till the time it collided with the Accused’s motorcycle. That would have meant that PW4’s car was less than 50 metres away from the said junction when the Accused made her right.

(viii) The Accused had disputed that the collision had occurred 2 seconds after she started moving from her stationary position at the junction. The Accused was of the view that the collision happened about 4 seconds after she had moved off from her stationary position^{[note: 174]}. Now, even if I were to accept the Accused’s version that there was a lapse time of 4 seconds between the point where she first started her right turn and the collision, taking into account the speed of PW4’s car at 85 km/h, that would have meant that PW4’s car was 94.44 metres away from the junction when the Accused started to make her discretionary right turn into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1.

(ix) And even basing on the Accused’s version of events, the PW4’s car would be within 150 metres from the junction when the Accused started to make her turn at the 13.12.47 mark in Exhibit P9. This clearly showed that the Accused’s version that she had looked as far as the overhead bridge which was more than 150 metres away before she had her right turn and she did not see any oncoming vehicles within 150 metres when she proceeded to make her turn could not be true.

(x) In any event, looking at the 13.12.47 mark of Exhibit P9 and using the lamp-posts in Figure 1 of Exhibit 23 as a guide, it was clear to me that PW4’s car could not have been 94.44 metres away from the junction when it first appeared on the screen.

(xi) As such, I was not prepared to accept the Accused’s version that she did not see PW4’s car before she made her discretionary right turn into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1.

(xii) The objective evidence clearly pointed to a mis-judgment on the part of the Accused. I believed that what had actually happened was that the Accused was concentrating on the black car when she was at the said junction and she had failed to observe PW4’s car which was approaching the junction when she decided to make the discretionary right turn and that had resulted in the collision between PW4’s car and her motorcycle.

(c) The video footages clearly showed that the Accused did not show due care and attention when she was making her right turn at the junction:

(i) Exhibits P9 and P21 also showed that when the Accused started to make her discretionary right turn into Kaki Bukit Avenue 1, none of the vehicles that were on the 2 turning only lanes on Eunos Link followed suit. The video footages showed that the Accused’s motorcycle was the only vehicle that had moved during that period of time. In fact, PW3 had testified that even after the collision, the lights were still green in favour of PW4’s car.

(ii) The fact that all the other vehicles on the 2 turning only lanes did not move was very telling of the conduct of the Accused. It was clear to me that the reason why the other vehicles did not move was because they were of the view that it was not yet safe for them to make the turn.

120 In the present case, the Accused was making a discretionary right turn at a controlled junction when PW4 had right of way. The Accused was under a duty of care to keep a proper lookout and give way to oncoming traffic. The Accused had clearly failed in her duty in the present case.

Whether PW4 was speeding along Eunos Link

121 The Accused had alleged that PW4 was speeding along Eunos Link when he collided into the Accused’s motorcycle. PW4, on the other hand, had denied that he was speeding along Eunos Link and that he was driving at normal speed.

122 I noted that the speed limit along Eunos Link was 50 km/h. After taking into account the HSA report (Exhibit P23) prepared by PW7 which was not challenged by both parties, I was prepared to accept PW7’s evidence that her forensic analysis of Exhibit P10 showed that PW4 was travelling at 84 to 85 km/h along Eunos Link just before his car collided into the Accused’s motorcycle at the said junction. I was therefore prepared to accept the fact that PW4 was driving at a speed of 84 to 85 km/h when he was approaching the said junction and this speed was much higher than the speed limit of 50 km/h for the said road.

Whether PW4’s speeding was the main cause of the collision

123 In the present case, it was clear that the Accused had made a discretionary right turn without giving way to PW4’s car which had right of way and that had resulted in the collision between the 2 vehicles. I agreed with the Prosecution’s submission that “the duty must be on the Accused when making the right turn at the traffic junction to give way to oncoming vehicles that had the right of way, and she should not attempt to make the right turn when it was clearly unsafe or dangerous to do so”.

124 The Accused had submitted that the collision was caused by PW4’s speeding and was not caused by her discretionary right turn.

125 In the present case, there was a dispute between the parties as to who had caused the collision between the 2 vehicles. The issue of causation was considered by Sundaresh Menon CJ in Guay Seng Tiong Nickson v Public Prosecutor [2016] SGHC 94 (“Nickson Guay”). Nickson Guay was a case involving section 304A of the Penal Code. Sundaresh Menon CJ had at [30] stated the following:

“The principles at play

(1) Causation

30 Causation is an essential requirement of an offence under s 304A(b) of the Penal Code. The negligent act of the offender must have caused the death of the victim.

31 Generally, causation consists of causation in fact and causation in law. As explained by the Court of Appeal in Sunny Metal & Engineering Pte Ltd v Ng Khim Ming Eric [2007] 3 SLR(R) 782 (“Sunny Metal”) at [52](albeit in the context of the tort of negligence), causation in fact “is concerned with the question of whether the relation between the defendant’s breach of duty and the claimant’s damage is one of cause and effect in accordance with scientific or objective notions of physical sequence”. The test is often framed as a counterfactual and the question to be asked is this: but for a particular event (A), would the result (B) have occurred? This is referred to as the “but for test”. However, to take the but for test as the sole indicia of causation can lead one to draw absurd conclusions. The example provided in Sunny Metal (taken from Harvey McGregor, McGregor on Damages (Sweet & Maxwell, 17th Ed, 2003) at para 6-008)) is that of a mother who gives birth to a son who commits murder when he grows up. Applying the but for test, the mother may be said to be a cause of the murder because if she had not had that child, the murder would not have happened.

32 To avoid such absurdities, for the purposes of establishing legal liability, the requirement of causation in law must also be satisfied. In Sunny Metal, the Court of Appeal put the point in the following terms (at [54]):

… There is usually no dispute as to what in fact happened to cause the claimant’s damage; rather the question is which event will be treated as the cause for the purpose of attributing legal responsibility. The court therefore has to decide whether the defendant’s wrongful conduct constituted the ‘legal cause’ of the damage. This recognises that causes assume significance to the extent that they assist the court in deciding how best to attribute responsibility for the claimant’s damage: see M’Lean v Bell (1932) 48 TLR 467 at 469. In effect, as Andrews J quite candidly put it in Palsgraf v The Long Island Railroad Company 248 NY 339 (1928) at 352:

[B]ecause of convenience, of public policy, of a rough sense of justice, the law arbitrarily declines to trace a series of events beyond a certain point. This is not logic. It is practical politics. [emphasis in original omitted; emphasis added]

33 It has thus often been said that the common law approaches the question of causation on a common-sense basis (see McGhee v National Coal Board [1972] UKHL 7; [1973] 1 WLR 1 at 5B per Lord Reid and Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corp Ltd (1987) 12 ACLR 202 at 244 per McHugh JA). The underlying inquiry is always whether there is a sufficient nexus between the negligent conduct and the damage to justify the attribution of responsibility to the actor. If the nexus is not sufficient, liability will not attach to the negligent actor in respect of that damage. Actions of third parties or the victim may serve to so weaken the nexus between the actor’s conduct and the eventual damage that he cannot be said to be a legal cause of the damage even if, on a scientific and objective analysis, his act was a factual cause of the damage.

34 In the context of the offence of causing death by a rash or negligent act under s 304A of the Penal Code, it has been held that in order for liability to attach, the act must not only be the cause without which the death would not have occurred, but it must also be the causa causans, or the proximate and efficient cause of the death (see Lee Kim Leng v Regina [1964] MLJ 285 at 286C–286D). In Ng Keng Yong v PP [2004] 4 SLR(R) 89 (“Ng Keng Yong”), the appellants were two officers who served on a Republic of Singapore Navy Ship (“the Navy Ship”) who were charged under s 304A of the Penal Code. It was established that certain negligent actions they took in the course of navigation resulted in a collision between the Navy Ship and a merchant vessel (“ANL”). Four crewmembers of the Navy Ship lost their lives as a result of the collision. The appellants were convicted by the district judge and appealed only against their conviction. On the facts, it was established that ANL, too, had been negligent in making a series of small alterations to its course to avoid collision, instead of making a large alteration, as was required by the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (“Collision Regulations”).

35 Yong Pung How CJ accepted the appellants’ submission that the vessels would not have collided if ANL had not also been negligent in the way they altered their course. However, he rejected the argument that the appellants were, therefore, not the cause of the accident at law. He held that the chain of causation was not necessarily broken just because a third party’s negligence supervenes. On the facts, he concluded that while the ANL’s negligent act was a contributing cause of the accident, it did not break the chain of causation. He explained his decision as follows (at [64] and [66]):

64 … [T]he question before me was whether the appellants’ negligent alteration to port in breach of r 14(a) of the Collision Regulations constituted the proximate and efficient cause of the collision, or whether the ANL’s undisputed contributory negligence intervened to break the chain of causation.

…

66 … Proceeding on both principle and logic, it is evident that criminal liability under s 304A should attach to the person(s) whose negligence contributed substantially, and not merely peripherally, to the result. When Chua J observed that the accused’s act should be the proximate and efficient cause of the result without the intervention of another’s negligence, he was merely emphasising the point that the accused’s negligence, and not the negligence of any other person, should have contributed significantly to the result. If he meant to suggest that the chain of causation was necessarily broken by the very fact of a third party’s intervening negligence, then, with the greatest respect, I cannot agree. The particulars of the factual matrix, and the extent to which the third party’s negligence contributed to the deaths, have to be assessed as well. The court must ultimately direct its mind to whether the negligence of the accused contributed significantly or substantially to the result.

[emphasis in original omitted; emphasis added]

On the facts before him, Yong CJ held that the appellants’ negligence was clearly a substantial cause of the collision and, despite the negligence of ANL, the appellants were criminally liable under s 304A of the Penal Code.

36 Ng Keng Yong demonstrates that the mere presence of multiple causes that all contribute to occasion the death may not be sufficient to relieve a negligent actor of criminal liability even if one of those other contributing causes was the negligent act of the victim or of a third party. For the purposes of a charge under s 304A, the court does not look to ascertain which of the contributing causes can be said to be the most substantial cause. Instead, its concern is whether the act of the accused was a substantial cause of the death such that it can be said to be a proximate and efficient cause of the injury.

126 On the issue of liability, Sundaresh Menon went on to state at [38]:

“38 Hence, in order to escape liability , it is not sufficient for the accused to point to the fact that there are other contributing causes. All the prosecution has to show is that the accused is a substantial cause of the injury even if there were other contributing causes. I should add that I use the term “substantial cause” because it was the expression used in Ng Keng Yong ([34] supra ) at [71]. The test for causation has been variously articulated in other parts of the Commonwealth, with expressions such as “not insignificant”, “more than de minimis ”, or “significant contribution” having been used to convey the same notion that an accused’s act must be a significant cause of death in order for liability to attach (see R v Nette [2001] 3 SCR 488 at [4]; R v Smithers [1978] 1 SCR 506; Royall v The Queen [1991] HCA 27; [1991] 100 ALR 669; R v Pagett [1983] EWCA Crim 1; (1983) 76 Cr App R 279 at 288 per Robert Goff LJ; R v Cato [1976] 1 All ER 260 at 266d per Lord Widgery CJ; R v Cheshire at 852A). I also note that there are some who consider that these are not merely semantic differences (see Stanley Yeo, “Causation in Criminal and Civil Negligence”, (2007) 25 Sing L Rev 108 and see also the observations of Lord Sumner in British Columbia Electric Railway Company, Limited v Loach [1916] 1 AC 719 at 727–728) but as none of this is in issue before me, I say no more on this.”

(Emphasis mine)

127 In the earlier part of my decision, I had given my reasons as to why I was of the view that the Accused had failed to exercise proper care and attention when she was making her discretionary right turn at the said junction.

128 Looking at the facts of the present case, I was of the view that while PW4’s speeding could have contributed to the collision, it was the Accused’s act of making the right turn when PW4 had the right of way which was the main cause of the collision. This case was similar to the case of Ng Keng Yong in that PW4’s speeding did not “break the chain of causation”.

129 The collision would not have taken place if the Accused had exercised due care and attention by keeping a proper look-out for vehicles which were travelling on the opposite side of the road and had right of way before making her turn. And as pointed out by DJ Chay Yuen Fatt in PP v Ching Teng Joo [2019] SGDC at [29] “In any case, regardless of the victim’s speed, the accused should not have made the discretionary turn and it was dangerous for him to do so. If indeed the victim was travelling at a very fast speed, it would have been even more dangerous for the accused to execute the discretionary turn into the victim’s path”.

130 The Accused’s conduct was clearly a substantial cause of the collision and, despite the contributory negligence of PW4, the Accused was still criminally liable under section 65(a) of the Road Traffic Act.

My decision

131 In the present case, having considered all the evidence before me, I was of the view that the Prosecution had proved their case against the Accused beyond a reasonable doubt and I thereby convicted the Accused of the said charge.

Accused’s antecedents

132 I noted that the Accused had the following antecedents:

(a) Convicted of the offence of driving while under disqualification under section 43(3) of the Road Traffic Act on 4 May 1992 in Court 23N and fined $600.

(b) Convicted of a second offence of driving while under disqualification under section 43(3) of the Road Traffic Act on 19 December 1992 in Court 24 and fined $270.

Sentencing

Prosecution’s Submission on Sentence

133 The Prosecution had submitted for a fine of $600 with a disqualification of 6 months.

134 The Prosecution had submitted that for the present case, the harm caused was serious as the collision had caused injuries to 3 parties. PW5, the pillion rider had suffered multiple wounds over her left flank and bilateral lower limbs and fractures of the left anterior superior iliac spine and left patella. PW5 also had left flank advancement flap on 10 September 2018 under general surgery^{[note: 175]}. PW4 had suffered musculoskeletal strain and he had tenderness over his left lower back and both hypothenar eminences^{[note: 176]}. The Accused herself was hospitalised from 6 September 2018 to 29 September 2018 and she was given 33 days medical leave^{[note: 177]}. I also noted that PW5 had testified that she was hospitalised for 20 weeks and had to undergo 2 different surgeries.

135 On the issue of culpability, the Prosecution was of the view that the Accused’s culpability was in the low to medium range.

136 As regards to sentencing precedents, the Prosecution informed me that they were unable to find any precedents relating to section 65(a) of the Road Traffic Act. Instead, they referred me to the following 3 cases under section 65(b) of the Road Traffic Act which provided for the same punishment:

S/No	Case	Facts	Sentence
1	Koh Nyak Hong v PP [2010] SGDC 385	The accused who was also a driver of a taxi, made a right turn without giving way to the motorcyclist who was proceeding straight across the junction, although the motorcyclist had the right of way. This resulted in a collision which caused the motorcyclist to suffer serious injuries: i. The victim had a right ankle open fracture, right distal femoral shaft closed fracture, right hip intertrochanteric closed fracture and right shin laceration ii. The victim was hospitalised for 11 days from 7 June to 15 June 2008, followed by a subsequent round of hospitalisation from 24 to 26 October 2008 for bone grafting of his right femur fracture iii. The victim underwent surgery namely wound debridement and suturing of his right shin laceration, wound debridement and cancellous screw fixation of right ankle, open reduction and plating of right femur shaft and right dynamic hip screw fixation iv. A subsequent medical review which was conducted three and a half months after the victim’s discharge showed that the victim was only able to partially bear weight on his right lower limb	$700 and 2 months DQAC Accused’s appeal against his sentence lapsed
2	PP v Kiew Ah Ching [2006] SGDC 150	The accused claimed trial to a charge under s 65(b) of the RTA. The trial judge found that the accused drove in a zig-zag manner and had veered to the left, encroaching into the path of a motorcycle, causing the motorcyclist to collide onto the rear portion of a van. The trial judge found that the accused had failed to maintain lane discipline and changed lanes without reasonable consideration for the motorcyclist, thereby demonstrating a high order of inconsideration to the motorcyclist. The motorcyclist suffered multiple bruises and fractures and was warded for 10 days. He was warded in Intensive Care Unit for 5 days.	$900 and 3 months DQAC Accused’s appeal against his sentence lapsed
3	PP v Sadly Bin Wadi [2010] SGDC 502	The accused claimed trial to a charge under s65(b) of the RTA for hitting a 9 year old pedestrian who was crossing a pedestrian crossing with the right of way. The victim suffered the following injuries: i. multiple abrasions on the left parietal region of the scalp; ii. abrasions over his upper and lower limbs; iii. abrasions on the right upper quadrant and lower mid-line region of his abdomen with tenderness in the right and upper left quadrant as well as in the left flank; iv. s splenic fracture with perisplenic haematoma; v. a small left sided renal laceration; and vi. he was warded for 10 days and was given 25 days of medical leave.	$800 and 2 months DQAC Accused’s appeal against his sentence lapsed

Mitigation and Defence’s Position on Sentencing

137 The Accused had urged me to consider the following mitigating factors:

(a) As for her antecedents, the Accused submitted that they were dated and committed when she was in her 20s. The Accused also said that she had committed the first offence of driving under DQ because her father had a stroke and she was required to drive his car, As for her second offence of driving under DQ, the Accused said that she was just being filial as her mother had asked her to fetch her from the market as her mother had a lot of things to carry and she had committed the offence out of filial piety.

(b) The Accused also submitted that she was a good rider and she had not committed any traffic offence, nor has she cumulated any demerit points over the past 28 years since the dates of her antecedents.

(c) The Accused also said that she was suffering from financial difficulties and that she would have difficulties paying her fine and she requested for instalment payment.

(d) As for disqualification, the Accused requested that I did not impose disqualification as she needed her motorcycle to move around. The Accused said that her motorcycle was akin to her mobile wheelchair as she was having problem with mobility after suffering injuries resulting from the collision. The Accused also said that she did a lot of volunteer work at night and she needed her driving licence in order to do her volunteer work. I noted that the Accused did not submit any documentary evidence to support her above claims.

My Sentence

138 The punishment prescribed under section 65(a) of the Road Traffic Act for driving without due car and attention was a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.

139 Section 42 of the Road Traffic Act also empowered the court, where necessary, to disqualify an accused from holding or obtaining a driving licence for life or for such period as the court may think fit.

140 According to the general editors of the Practitioners’ Library – Sentencing Practice in the Subordinate Courts, 3^rd Edition, LexisNexis, 2013 at [page 1693]:

“For offences of driving without due care and attention or inconsiderate driving, the English Court in R v Krawec [1985] RTR 1 stated the primary considerations for sentencing as:

[T]he unforeseen and unexpected results of the carelessness are not in themselves relevant to the penalty. The primary considerations are the quality of driving, the extent to which the [offender] on the particular occasion fell below the standard of the reasonably competent driver, in other words, the degree of carelessness and culpability. The unforeseen consequences may sometimes be relevant to those considerations. As regards the consequences of an accident, in the Hong Kong case of The Queen v Chau Tai [1999] 1 HKLR 341, it was stated that ‘the consequences of an accident may sometimes have little relevance to the penalty that should be imposed. Sometimes a period of momentary inattention can have tragic results, while a piece of extremely bad or wicked driving can fortunately result in an offender escaping any accident.

As the degree of culpability is the primary consideration when sentencing, cases of momentary inattention or error of judgment should result in fines whilst terms of custody would be appropriate for cases of deliberate serious risk taking or bad irresponsible driving. However, the consequences of the driving are not totally irrelevant to the penalty; see R v Simmonds [1999] RTR 257. If the offence has led to a death the court is entitled to bear that in mind.

As for ordering a term of disqualification, s 42 vests the court with the discretionary power to impose disqualification upon a conviction under s 65. Again, in deciding whether a disqualification order is appropriate, the primary consideration would be the degree of inconsiderateness or carelessness. In cases where the offender has previous convictions or it is clearly demonstrated that he is a danger to other road users a longer term would be warranted. Otherwise, a short period of three to six months’ disqualification would be appropriate in cases of deliberate serious risk taking.

3 Checklist of factors affecting sentence

Seriousness Indicators (+)	Seriousness Indicators (-)
1 Serious injury or damage 2 High degree of carelessness/inconsiderateness 3 Deliberate serious risk taking 4 Danger to other road users 5 Excessive speed 6 Evidence of alcohol or drugs 7 Using a hand-held mobile telephone This list is not exhaustive	1 Momentary lapse 2 Error of judgment 3 No or minor damage 4 Minor risk This list is not exhaustive

4 Case summaries

Frankie Nai Guan Kiang v PP

[2003] SGDC 297

Failing to give way to traffic with right of way — Pleaded guilty — First offender

Offender pleaded guilty to an offence of driving his motor car without due consideration for other persons using the road when he failed to give way to traffic with the right of way when making a right turn at the signalised cross-junction of New Upper Changi Road, Tanah Merah Kechil Road and Bedok South Avenue 3 and collided into a motorcycle that was proceeding straight across the junction in the direction of New Upper Changi Road. Rider sustained open book fracture of the pelvis, right shoulder with avulsion fracture of the greater tuberosity, fracture of the first right metatarsal bone of the right foot and laceration of the right ring finger. Rider was hospitalised for 25 days. Both vehicles were moderately damaged.

Sentence imposed by the trial court: Fined $1,000 (in default 10 days’ imprisonment) and disqualified from driving on all classes for six months.

Results of appeal: Offender’s appeal against disqualification order lapsed.”

(Emphasis mine)

141 I also noted the following factors in the present case which were relevant towards sentencing:

(a) The serious nature of the collision. In the present case, both the Accused and her pillion rider, PW5, were seriously injured and they had to be hospitalised and given long periods of medical leave. PW4, the driver of the other car who was involved in the collision, had also suffered musculoskeletal strain. The vehicles involved in the accident, the Accused’s motorcycle and PW4’s car, were also badly damaged^{[note: 178]}.

(b) It was clear from the objective evidence that PW4’s car was very close to the junction when the Accused had decided to make her discretionary turn to the right. It was also clear that all the other vehicles which were waiting to turn were of the view that view that it was unsafe to do so as none of the other vehicles had attempted to make the turn at the time the Accused decided to make her turn., It was clear to me that the Accused had exercised a high degree of carelessness when she decided to make her turn when PW4’s car was so close to her and travelling at a high speed.

(c) The lack of remorse shown by the Accused. In the present case, the Accused had decided to contest the charge despite the presence of objective video recordings, and she had taken the Prosecution through 5 days of hearing.

(d) I also noted that the Accused had been convicted on 2 occasions for driving under disqualification. While I accept that her antecedents were dated, I was of the view that her antecedents were still relevant as it showed her disregard for the law and her conduct of refusing to obey the law and driving rules despite there being a court order against her.

(e) I also took into account the fact that PW4 had contributed to the collision by speeding along Eunos Link.

142 In the present case, as the Accused had claimed trial to the proceeded charge, that meant that the usual sentencing discount that was usually granted to a case whereby an offender had pleaded guilty would not be applicable to the Accused.

143 As for the Accused’s mitigation plea, I was of the view that none of the mitigating factors raised by the Accused was relevant towards the issue of sentencing. I also noted that throughout her mitigation, the Accused had maintained her position that she did not do anything wrong and the collision was wholly caused by PW4’s speeding.

144 Having considered the usual tariffs for such offences and the fact that the Accused had claimed trial to the charge, I was of the view that a fine of $800 in default 4 days imprisonment was appropriate in the circumstances.

145 As for the payment of the fine, the Accused had requested for an instalment plan citing financial difficulties. The Prosecution did not object to the application. After hearing the Accused’s reasons, I granted her time to pay the fine and I ordered that she paid $100 forthwith and the remaining $700 to be paid by way of monthly instalments of $200 a month with effect 10 July 2021 with the last instalment payment of $100.

146 On the issue of disqualification, I noted that in the case of PP v Ong Heng Chua [2018] 5 SLR 388 (“Ong Heng Chua”) at [58], the court had observed that the period of disqualification was generally in the region of 12 to 36 months for reported s 338(b) road traffic cases.

147 As recognized by Menon CJ in the case of Edwin s/o Suse Nathen v Public Prosecutor [2013] 4 SLR 1139 at [13] – [14]:

“A disqualification order combines three sentencing objectives: punishment, protection of the public and deterrence......Where an offence reflects a blatant disregard for the safety of other road users and a lack of personal responsibility, there is a public interest in taking such a driver off the roads for a substantial period of time. The aims of deterrence are also served by sounding a stiff warning that such drivers can expect a lengthy disqualification order. The disqualification order should therefore increase in tandem with the severity of the offence, whether or not it is also accompanied by a substantial fine or period of imprisonment.”

(emphasis added in bold)

148 In the present case, I was of the view that the Accused’s degree of culpability was moderate, and the harm caused was high. The Accused had failed to give way to PW4 who had right of way and she had cut across PW4’s car it was travelling at high speed and was very close to her. Also, both the Accused and PW5 had suffered serious injuries and there was extensive damage caused to the Accused’s motorcycle and PW4’s car.

149 In the present case, the main considerations in imposing an appropriate period of disqualification were the degree of carelessness, whether there were any antecedents and for the protection of safety of the public. Having regard to all the circumstances of the present case, I was of the view that a disqualification period of 4 months was appropriate to achieve the sentencing objectives of deterrence for the Accused and protection of the public.

150 The Accused being dissatisfied with my decision had filed her Notice of Appeal against my order on conviction and sentence. I had also granted a stay of execution of my orders pending appeal.[Context] [Hide Context]

^{[note: 1]}NE Day 1 Page 6-7

^{[note: 2]}See Exhibit P1

^{[note: 3]}NE Day 1 Page 8-9, 15

^{[note: 4]}NE Day 1 Page 16

^{[note: 5]}NE Day 1 Page 16-17

^{[note: 6]}NE Day 1 Page 23

^{[note: 7]}NE Day 1 Page 33

^{[note: 8]}NE Day 1 Page 23-24

^{[note: 9]}NE Day 1 Page 24, 40

^{[note: 10]}NE Day 1 Page 28-29

^{[note: 11]}NE Day 1 Page 33, see page 2 of Exhibit P7

^{[note: 12]}NE Day 1 Page 40

^{[note: 13]}NE Day 1 Page 44

^{[note: 14]}NE Day 1 Page 30-32, Exhibits P5 and P6 were the 2 acknowledgment slips from PW4 and PW3 for the SD cards

^{[note: 15]}NE Day 1 Page 32

^{[note: 16]}NE Day 1 Page 32

^{[note: 17]}NE Day 1 Page 34

^{[note: 18]}NE Day 1 Page 32

^{[note: 19]}NE Day 1 Page 39

^{[note: 20]}NE Day 1 Page 44

^{[note: 21]}NE Day 1 Page 48

^{[note: 22]}NE Day 1 Page 61

^{[note: 23]}NE Day 1 Page 70-71, see 13.12.47 to 13.47.49 of Exhibit P9

^{[note: 24]}NE Day 1 Page 61

^{[note: 25]}NE Day 1 Page 72

^{[note: 26]}NE Day 1 Page 72

^{[note: 27]}NE Day 1 Page 73

^{[note: 28]}NE Day 1 Page 78

^{[note: 29]}NE Day 1 Page 66-67

^{[note: 30]}NE Day 1 Page 69

^{[note: 31]}NE Day 1 Page 71, see 13.12.48 to 13.12.50 of Exhibit P9

^{[note: 32]}NE Day 1 Page 84

^{[note: 33]}NE Day 1 Page 82

^{[note: 34]}NE Day 2 Page 32-33, Day 3 Page 11

^{[note: 35]}NE Day 1 Page 80, Day 2 Page 33

^{[note: 36]}NE Day 1 Page 103, Day 3 Page 17

^{[note: 37]}NE Day 3 Page 11

^{[note: 38]}NE Day 3 Page 15

^{[note: 39]}NE Day 3 Page 16

^{[note: 40]}NE Day 1 Page 80, Day 2 Page 33

^{[note: 41]}NE Day 3 Page 10-11

^{[note: 42]}NE Day 1 Page 81

^{[note: 43]}NE Day 3 Page 10-11

^{[note: 44]}NE Day 1 Page 100-101, Day 2 Page 19, 48

^{[note: 45]}NE Day 1 Page 81

^{[note: 46]}NE Day 1 Page 99

^{[note: 47]}NE Day 1 page 99

^{[note: 48]}NE Day 1 Page 85

^{[note: 49]}NE Day 1 Page 85

^{[note: 50]}NE Day 1 Page 86

^{[note: 51]}NE Day 1 Page 90

^{[note: 52]}NE Day 1 Page 98

^{[note: 53]}NE Day 1 Page 98

^{[note: 54]}NE Day 1 Page 116-117

^{[note: 55]}NE Day 1 Page 98, Day 2 Page 33, 36

^{[note: 56]}NE Day 1 Page 114

^{[note: 57]}NE Day 1 Page 102

^{[note: 58]}NE Day 1 Page 114

^{[note: 59]}NE Day 2 Page 57

^{[note: 60]}NE Day 2 Page 7-8

^{[note: 61]}NE Day 2 Page 10

^{[note: 62]}NE Day 1 Page 106

^{[note: 63]}NE Day 2 Page 19

^{[note: 64]}NE Day 3 Page 25

^{[note: 65]}NE Day 2 Page 2-16

^{[note: 66]}NE Day 2 Page 33, 84

^{[note: 67]}NE Day 2 Page 59

^{[note: 68]}NE Day 2 Page 75

^{[note: 69]}NE Day 3 Page 14

^{[note: 70]}NE Day 3 Page 13, 18

^{[note: 71]}NE Day 2 Page 34

^{[note: 72]}NE Day 2 Page 38

^{[note: 73]}NE Day 2 Page 37

^{[note: 74]}NE Day 2 Page 49-50

^{[note: 75]}NE Day 2 Page 63-64

^{[note: 76]}NE Day 3 Page 15, 17

^{[note: 77]}NE Day 2 Page 66

^{[note: 78]}NE Day 2 Page 67, see Exhibit P10

^{[note: 79]}NE Day 3 Page 10, 12

^{[note: 80]}NE Day 3 Page 16

^{[note: 81]}NE Day 3 Page 31

^{[note: 82]}NE Day 3 Page 32

^{[note: 83]}NE Day 3 Page 32

^{[note: 84]}NE Day 3 Page 35

^{[note: 85]}NE Day 3 Page 33-34

^{[note: 86]}NE Day 3 Page 32

^{[note: 87]}NE Day 3 Page 35-36, see Exhibit P20 which was PW5’s medical report

^{[note: 88]}NE Day 3 Page 41

^{[note: 89]}NE Day 3 Page 43

^{[note: 90]}NE Day 3 Page 44

^{[note: 91]}NE Day 3 Page 44

^{[note: 92]}NE Day 3 Page 45, see Exhibit P11

^{[note: 93]}NE Day 3 Page 46

^{[note: 94]}NE Day 3 Page 46-47

^{[note: 95]}NE Day 3 Page 47

^{[note: 96]}NE Day 3 Page 49

^{[note: 97]}NE Day 3 Page 56-58

^{[note: 98]}NE Day 4 Page 2

^{[note: 99]}NE Day 4 Page 4

^{[note: 100]}NE Day 4 Page 7

^{[note: 101]}NE Day 4 Page 7

^{[note: 102]}NE Day 4 Page 8

^{[note: 103]}NE Day 4 Page 10

^{[note: 104]}NE Day 4 Page 16

^{[note: 105]}NE Day 4 Page 16

^{[note: 106]}NE Day 4 Page 22-23

^{[note: 107]}NE Day 4 Page 23

^{[note: 108]}NE Day 4 Page 24

^{[note: 109]}NE Day 4 Page 26

^{[note: 110]}NE Day 4 Page 30

^{[note: 111]}NE Day 4 Page 27-29

^{[note: 112]}NE Day 4 Page 29-30, see Exhibit P23

^{[note: 113]}NE Day 4 Page 35-36

^{[note: 114]}NE Day 4 Page 44

^{[note: 115]}NE Day 4 Page 43

^{[note: 116]}NE Day 4 Page 45

^{[note: 117]}NE Day 4 Page 45

^{[note: 118]}NE Day 4 Page 45

^{[note: 119]}NE Day 4 Page 45

^{[note: 120]}NE Day 4 Page 45

^{[note: 121]}NE Day 4 Page 46

^{[note: 122]}NE Day 4 Page 46

^{[note: 123]}NE Day 4 Page 48

^{[note: 124]}NE Day 5 Page 1

^{[note: 125]}NE Day 4 Page 53

^{[note: 126]}NE Day 4 Page 54

^{[note: 127]}NE Day 4 Page 55

^{[note: 128]}NE Day 4 Page 55

^{[note: 129]}NE Day 4 Page 56-57

^{[note: 130]}NE Day 4 Page 61

^{[note: 131]}NE Day 4 Page 61, see the Accused’s marking of her position on Exhibit P2

^{[note: 132]}NE Day 4 Page 61

^{[note: 133]}NE Day 4 Page 62

^{[note: 134]}NE Day 5 Page 2

^{[note: 135]}NE Day 5 Page 3

^{[note: 136]}NE Day 5 Page 6-7

^{[note: 137]}NE Day 5 Page 22

^{[note: 138]}NE Day 5 Page 24

^{[note: 139]}NE Day 5 Page 24

^{[note: 140]}NE Day 5 Page 26, see Exhibit P23

^{[note: 141]}NE Day 5 Page 27

^{[note: 142]}NE Day 5 Page 11

^{[note: 143]}NE Day 5 Page 16-18, see Exhibit P9, also see Exhibit P21 from 00.05 to 00.07

^{[note: 144]}NE Day 4 Page 63-66, see Exhibit P21 at 13.12.38

^{[note: 145]}NE Day 4 Page 66-67

^{[note: 146]}NE Day 4 Page 67-70, see Exhibit P21 and Exhibit P9 at 3.12.14 to 3.12.37

^{[note: 147]}NE Day 4 Page 70, see Exhibit P9

^{[note: 148]}NE Day 5 Page 19-20, see Exhibit P21 from 00.05 to 00.08

^{[note: 149]}See Prosecution Submissions filed on 6 May 2021 and Prosecution’s Reply to Submission of Defence dated 27 May 2021

^{[note: 150]}See Exhibits P9, P10 and P21

^{[note: 151]}NE Day 1 Page 80

^{[note: 152]}NE Day 1 Page 61

^{[note: 153]}NE Day 4 Page 61

^{[note: 154]}NE Day 4 Page 61

^{[note: 155]}NE Day 4 Page 70

^{[note: 156]}NE Day 5 Page 37

^{[note: 157]}NE Day 4 Page 66

^{[note: 158]}NE Day 5 Page 2

^{[note: 159]}NE Day 5 Page 3

^{[note: 160]}NE Day 5 Page 3

^{[note: 161]}NE Day 5 Page 7

^{[note: 162]}NE Day 5 Page 9

^{[note: 163]}NE Day 5 Page 26

^{[note: 164]}NE Day 4 Page 35

^{[note: 165]}See Page 3 of Exhibit P23

^{[note: 166]}PP v Yap Kok Hua [SC-900047-2019]

^{[note: 167]}See Submission of Accused dated 5 May 2021

^{[note: 168]}See Accused’s markings on Exhibit P2

^{[note: 169]}NE Day 5 Page 37-38

^{[note: 170]}See Page 2 of Exhibit P23

^{[note: 171]}NE Day 5 Page 33

^{[note: 172]}See Exhibit P9 from 13.12.47 to 13.12.49

^{[note: 173]}See Exhibit P23

^{[note: 174]}NE Day 5 Page 34, 37

^{[note: 175]}See Exhibit P20

^{[note: 176]}See Exhibit P12

^{[note: 177]}See Exhibit P22

^{[note: 178]}Evident from Exhibits P3, P4 and P14 to P19