District Court of Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Wong Choon Yong
[2021] SGDC 209

Criminal Law – Offences – Grievous hurt

Criminal Law – Offences – Road traffic Act – Section 63(4), section 67(1)(b) and section 122

Evidence – Proof of evidence – Onus of Proof

Evidence – Witnesses – Witnesses’ credibility

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing – Sentencing – Principles

[LawNet Editorial Note: An appeal to this decision has been filed in MA 9145/2021/01.]

22 September 2021

District Judge Edgar Foo:

Introduction

1 Mr Wong Choon Yong (“the Accused”), a 37-year-old male Chinese Singapore Citizen faced a total of 2 charges:

You … are charged that you, on 9th August 2018, at or about 3.20 am, along the Kampong Java Tunnel in the Central Expressway (CTE) towards Ayer Rajah Expressway (AYE), Singapore, did drive the motor car bearing registration plate number SKN3003T at a speed of 135 kph, a speed exceeding (by 51-60 kph) the speed limit of 80 kph imposed on the road in question, and you have thereby committed an offence under s 63(4) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) (“RTA”),

and further, that you, before the commission of the above offence, were on 16 September 2015 in State Court No. 21 vide 156117782911 convicted of driving without reasonable consideration under s 65(b) of the RTA, and were sentenced to a fine of $600.00, which conviction and sentence have not been set aside to date, and you are thereby liable for enhanced punishment under s 131(2)(b) of the RTA.

You … are charged that you, on 9th August 2018, at or about 3.20 am, along Central Expressway (CTE) towards Ayer Rajah Expressway (AYE) slip road into Buyong Road, Singapore, being the driver of the motor car bearing registration plate number SKN3003T, did cause grievous hurt to one Staff Sergeant Amir Muhammad Bin Abdul Hamid (the “victim”), who was the rider of police motorcycle TP1077B, by doing an act so negligently as to endanger human life, to wit, by applying hard braking despite the presence of the victim close behind you, causing the victim to also apply hard braking to avoid your motor car, thereby causing the victim to skid, fall off his motorcycle and sustain a distal radius fracture, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 338(b) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed).

2 The Accused had claimed trial to both the charges. At the conclusion of the trial after 5 days of hearing, I found the Accused guilty of both the charges and I convicted him of both the charges on 30 April 2021. I had also adjourned the both matters to 23 June 2021 for the Prosecution to address me on sentence and for the Accused to prepare his mitigation plea.

3 On 23 June 2021, after hearing the Prosecution’s address on sentence and the Defence’s mitigation plea, I imposed the following sentences on the Accused: -

S/N	Charge No.	Sentence
1	DAC 901382-2019	Fine of $1,500 default 7 days’ imprisonment
2	MAC 900626-2019	3 weeks’ imprisonment and DQAC 18 months from the date of the Accused’s release from prison.
Total sentence		3 weeks’ imprisonment and DQAC of 18 months to take effect from the date of the Accused’s release from prison and a fine of $1,500 in default 7 days’ imprisonment

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

Parties’ evidence and exhibits

Prosecution’s evidence and exhibits

5 The Prosecution had called a total of 6 witnesses in their case against the Accused:

No.	Witness	Role	Marking given to witness
1	SSSGT Amir Muhammad bin Abdul Hamid	Witness and victim in MAC 900626-2019	PW1
2	SSSGT Seet Ming Huai Sebastian	Witness	PW2
3	SSSGT Rafael Tan Soon Peng	Witness	PW3
4	SI Muhammad Suryadi	Witness	PW4
5	SI Jackson Mu Wei Jun	Investigating officer	PW5
6	SI Nor Affendi bin Jaffar	Rebuttal witness	PW6

6 In addition to the 6 witnesses, the Prosecution had also tendered a total of 12 sets of exhibits in support of their case against the Accused:

No.	Exhibit	Exhibit Marking
1	CD-ROM containing footage from TP 1077B taken on 9 August 2018	P1
2	CD-ROM containing footage from the front camera of QX 889A taken on 9 August 2018	P2
3	CD-ROM containing footage from the rear camera of QX 889A taken on 9 August 2018	P3
4	Medical Report on PW1 bearing reference 2018-14554-0	P4.1-5
5	First Information Report (Ref: E/20180809/0049)	P5
6	Google Map printout (3 pages)	P6
7	NP 299 (Report no. T/20180809/2018)	P7
8	Accused’s breath test result administered on 9 August 2018 from 4.49 am	P8
9	CRO Record pertaining to the Accused	P9
10	Specialist medical report on PW1 (Ref: POLICE S8528437A)	P10
11	Accused’s statement recorded by PW5 on 9 August 2018	P11A
12	Transcript of Accused’s statement recorded by the PW5 on 9 August 2018	P11B
12	Accused’s charges relating to drink driving and failure to stop when ordered by a policeman in uniform drafted by PW5	P12

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

PW1 – SSSGT Amir Muhammad bin Abdul Hamid

8 PW1 was a police officer with Traffic Police division and he had been working at the Traffic Police division for 10 years when he testified in court. On the 9^th of August 2018 at about 3.20 am, PW1 was on duty together with PW2, PW3 and PW4 and they were travelling along CTE towards AYE^{[note: 1]}. PW1 was riding a police motorcycle bearing registration number TP 1077B which had police logo and markings and was equipped with violet lights and red blinkers^{[note: 2]}. PW2 was also riding a police motorcycle which had similar markings and fittings^{[note: 3]}. PW3 and PW4 were in a Traffic Police patrol car which had police markings and fitted with blinkers^{[note: 4]}. PW3 and PW4 were dressed in their blue police uniform while PW1 and PW2 were wearing the Traffic Police riding jackets which was grey and white in colour with reflective white strips^{[note: 5]}.

9 While the group were travelling along the CTE before the Bukit Timah exit, they came across a white Audi car which was travelling much faster than the other vehicles that were travelling along the CTE^{[note: 6]}.

10 When PW1 first spotted the white Audi car, the white Audi car was travelling on the second from the right of 4 lanes^{[note: 7]}. PW1’s motorcycle was installed with an in-vehicle camera and he was able to capture the white Audi car from his motorcycle^{[note: 8]}. The Prosecution also tendered a footage from PW1’s in-vehicle camera (Exhibit P1)^{[note: 9]}. Other than Exhibit P1, the Prosecution also tendered 2 additional footages, one from the front camera of QX 889A (Exhibit P2) which was driven in PW3 and another from the rear camera of QX 889A (Exhibit P3).

11 PW1 testified that he was travelling behind the police patrol car which was driven by PW3 when he spotted the white Audi car which was in front of a red taxi which was travelling on lane 2 of the CTE^{[note: 10]}. The white Audi car then tried to switch to the 1^st lane and overtook a yellow taxi on the right lane^{[note: 11]}. PW1 also testified that the white Audi car was travelling faster than both the taxis^{[note: 12]}.

12 PW3 who was driving the patrol car then decided to trail the white Audi car^{[note: 13]}. PW1 also tried to trail the white Audi car and he proceeded to follow the white Audi car and to “lock” the speed of the white Audi car^{[note: 14]}. PW1 explained that his police motorcycle was equipped with a digital speedometer and in order to determine the speed the white Audi was travelling, he had to follow the white Audi car at the same speed that the white Audi car was travelling for a certain distance before using a switch on the handle of his motorcycle to freeze or lock his digital speedometer and thereby capturing the speed of the white Audi car^{[note: 15]}. PW1 testified that when he had managed to “lock” the speed of the white Audi car on his digital speedometer, the blue pilot light at the front of his police motorcycle was automatically switched on^{[note: 16]}. When PW1 was trailing the white Audi car, he did not check his speed because he was concentrating on the white Audi car in order to maintain a constant distance between them^{[note: 17]}. PW1 testified that he had locked the speed of the white Audi car at 135 km/h when the white Audi car was inside the Kampong Java tunnel^{[note: 18]}.

13 PW1 testified that in order to ensure that both his police motorcycle and the white Audi car were travelling at the same speed, PW1 needed to maintain a constant distance between the 2 vehicles before locking the speed on his digital speedometer. PW1 also explained that his motorcycle was fitted with a high plastic clear windscreen and he would use the windscreen as a guide and keep the violating vehicle within the windscreen and he would follow the vehicle for 400 to 500 metres before he locked his digital speedometer to capture the speed of the vehicle^{[note: 19]}. PW1 was also able to determine how far he had travelled by glancing at his odometer while trailing the vehicle^{[note: 20]}. PW1 also clarified that there was a Singapore Police Force logo on his windscreen which was connected to the body kit of his motorcycle and he was using the logo and the size of the rear of the white Audi car to help him maintain a constant distance between himself and the white Audi car^{[note: 21]}.

14 PW1 also testified that when the white Audi car was in Kampong Java tunnel, PW3 who was driving the patrol car, was just behind the white Audi car. When PW3 switched on the blinkers of his patrol car, the white Audi car did apply his brakes to slow down. However, the white Audi car did not stop, and it proceeded to travel along the Kampong Java tunnel^{[note: 22]}.

15 PW1 then caught up with the white Audi car on the left and he signalled to the driver to pull the car over to the left side of the road. PW1 sounded his horn twice before he made eye to eye contact with the driver. PW1 then signalled to the driver by pointing his hand at the driver and moving his hand to the left side to tell the driver to pull over to the left side of the road^{[note: 23]}. PW1 testified that after he had made eye to eye contact with the driver of the white Audi car, the driver turned to the front and continued to drive straight. PW1 also testified that there was no change in the speed of the white Audi car before and after he had gestured to the driver^{[note: 24]}.

16 PW1 testified that at the exit of Kampong Java tunnel, the patrol car driven by PW3 overtook both PW1 and the white Audi car^{[note: 25]}. The white Audi car then went past PW1 from his right side. At this point, PW1 was preparing to slow down along the road shoulder to indicate to the driver of the white Audi car that he could pull over in front of PW1’s motorcycle^{[note: 26]}.

17 PW1 testified that the white Audi car did not seem to want to pull over to the side of the road and he continued to drive ahead. At this point, the white Audi car was in the middle of the centre and the extreme left lane of the 3-lane road^{[note: 27]}. PW1 also noted that the white Audi car was signalling his intention to move to the left and its speed was around 90 to 100 km/h^{[note: 28]}. At that at that point of time, the nearest exit was the Buyong exit slip road. PW1 also testified that his in-vehicle unit froze and stopped working at that point of time^{[note: 29]}.

18 PW1 testified that he continued to follow the white Audi car and the white Audi car abruptly swerved into the Buyong exit slip road while maintaining its speed and without slowing down^{[note: 30]}.

19 PW1 was following the white Audi car when it entered the slip road and he was about 1 to 2 car lengths behind the white Audi car when the white Audi car suddenly applied hard braking and came to a stop along the single lane slip road . PW1 had to apply hard braking on his motorcycle which caused him to lose control of his motorcycle and fall off his motorcycle^{[note: 31]}.

20 Exhibit P3 captured the white Audi car entering the slip road with PW1 behind the white Audi car with his blinkers on. Behind PW1 was PW2 on his motorcycle^{[note: 32]}. PW1 testified that the white Audi car did not slow down as it entered the slip road and it was still travelling at 90 to 100 km/h when it entered the slip road^{[note: 33]}.

21 Exhibit P2 also captured the white Audi car applying its brakes at the slip road. PW1 had noticed that the driver of the white Audi car had his brakes on for about 5 seconds before he stopped his car. PW1 noticed that the white Audi car had travelled about 4 car lengths from the time the driver applied its brakes before the car stopped^{[note: 34]}. PW1 also testified that he had assumed that the white Audi car had no intention of stopping at the slip road as it had failed to stop earlier when he gestured the driver to do so and that was why he was chasing the white Audi car at a distance of 1 to 2 car lengths away and he did not expect the white Audi car to stop^{[note: 35]}. PW1 also testified that the slip road was wide enough for 2 cars to travel side by side^{[note: 36]}. I also noted that the white Audi car had stopped in the middle of the slip road rather than the side of the slip road.

22 PW1 testified that when he fell off his motorcycle, he fractured his left wrist due to the fall. PW1 was then conveyed to Tan Tock Seng Hospital (“TTSH”) by ambulance where he was treated for his injuries^{[note: 37]}.

23 PW1 had suffered a distal radius fracture on his left wrist and he was originally given 7 days medical leave. However, on 15 August 2018, PW1 went for a review and he was told that he required surgery for his injuries, and he underwent surgery on 16 August 2018, and he was given 30 days hospitalisation leave after that^{[note: 38]}.

24 PW1 also testified that he was informed by the specialist doctor that his injury was a permanent injury. The movement on his left wrist was restricted and one ligament on his left wrist was damaged. PW1 was unable to extend his left wrist fully when he flexed his wrist up and down unlike his right wrist^{[note: 39]}. PW1 was also unable to carry heavy stuff or pull heavy loads^{[note: 40]}.

25 When cross-examined by the Defence, PW1 testified that:

(a) PW1 had been attached to the patrol unit of the Traffic Police for 10 years and one of his scope of duties was to give chase to high speed traffic offenders^{[note: 41]}.

(b) PW1 first noticed the white Audi car along the CTE at about the 03.17.18 mark of Exhibit P1. At that time, the white Audi car was about 6 to 8 car lengths ahead of him^{[note: 42]}.

(c) PW1 started trailing the white Audi car at about the 03.17.27 mark of Exhibit P1 and he tried to maintain the same distance between him and the rear of the white Audi car when he was trailing the white Audi car. PW1 had followed the white Audi car at a constant speed when he was trailing the white Audi car and he was able to lock the speed of the white Audi car as the blue lights of his motorcycle was automatically switched on after he had locked the speed of the white Audi car. PW1 also testified that after he had locked the speed of the white Audi car, he immediately turned on the rear blinkers on his motorcycle^{[note: 43]}. PW1 also could not confirm if the white Audi car continued to travel at the same speed after he had locked the speed of the white Audi car but he was of the view that the white Audi car was travelling at the same speed because he did not see the white Audi car apply any brake lights to slow down^{[note: 44]}. PW1 also testified that after he had locked the speed of the white Audi car, he sped up to catch up with the white Audi car^{[note: 45]}.

(d) PW1 also clarified that when he was trailing the white Audi car to lock the speed of the white Audi car, it was not possible for him to catch up with the white Audi car as he was trying to follow the speed of the white Audi car. PW1 could only catch up with the white Audi car after he had locked the speed of the white Audi car with his digital speedometer^{[note: 46]}.

(e) PW1 testified that when he caught up with the white Audi car in the Kampong Java tunnel, he had slowed down when he was side by side with the white Audi car and his analogue speedometer showed that he was travelling around 90 to 100 km/h at that time^{[note: 47]}.

(f) PW1 was also not sure of the reason why his in-vehicle camera had frozen when he slowed down at the road shoulder after the exit of the Kampong Java tunnel^{[note: 48]}.

(g) PW1 testified that when the white Audi applied its brakes at the slip road, PW1 also proceeded to apply his brakes and that had caused him to lose control of his motorcycle and fall of his motorcycle^{[note: 49]}. PW1 was of the view that the driver of the white Audi car had applied hard braking even though it took 4 to 5 car lengths before the white Audi car came to a stop^{[note: 50]}.

(h) PW1 also clarified that after he had signalled the driver of the white Audi car to stop in the Kampong Java tunnel and he had slowed down at the road shoulder after the exit of the tunnel, he noticed that the driver of the white Audi car was not slowing down and he tried to pick up speed to follow the white Audi car and he followed the white Audi care at about 1 to 2 car lengths behind the white Audi car and he maintained the distance of 1 to 2 car lengths behind the white Audi car until they reached the exit to the slip road. At that time, the white Audi car was travelling at about 90-100 km/h and PW1 was maintaining the same speed as the white Audi car^{[note: 51]}.

PW2 – SSSGT Seet Ming Huai Sebastian

26 PW was a senior staff sergeant with the Singapore Police Force, and he was attached to the Traffic Police in August 2018^{[note: 52]}. PW2 was on duty from the night of 8 August 2018 to 9 August 2018^{[note: 53]}.

27 At about 3.20 am on 9 August 2018, PW2 was travelling along CTE towards AYE and he was riding a police motorcycle and in uniform^{[note: 54]}. PW2 was part of a convey which included PW1 who was riding his own police motorcycle and PW3 and PW4 who were in a police patrol car^{[note: 55]}.

28 Along the CTE, PW2 came across a white Audi car which caught his attention because it was travelling faster than the general traffic. PW2 spotted the white Audi car before the Bukit Timah exit along the CTE. PW2 decided to trail the white Audi car and he speed checked the white Audi car at about 125 km/h just outside the Kampong Java tunnel using his digital speedometer^{[note: 56]}.

29 PW2 testified that he had started trailing the white Audi car just before the Bukit Timah Road exit because he had noticed that the Audi car was travelling quite fast^{[note: 57]}. PW2 said that at the start of the trail, the white Audi car was travelling at about 110 km/h and he was picking up speed^{[note: 58]}. The white Audi car continued to increase its speed as it approached the Bukit Timah exit^{[note: 59]}. At that point of time, PW2 had not locked the speed of the white Audi car and he had also not done any speed check. However, PW2 was of the view that the white Audi car was travelling about 115 to 120 km/h at that point of time^{[note: 60]}. Just before the entering the Kampong Java tunnel, PW2 glanced at his digital speedometer and he was that the speed showing on his digital speedometer was 125 km/h^{[note: 61]}. PW2 continued to trail the white Audi car and he only stopped trailing the white Audi car after he had locked the speed of the white Audi car on his digital speedometer near the Cairnhill Road exit along the CTE^{[note: 62]}. PW2 testified that the Cairnhill Road exit was about 500 metres after entering the Kampong Java tunnel^{[note: 63]}. PW2 locked the speed of the white Audi car at 135 km/h when it was at the Cairnhill Road exit inside the Kampong Java tunnel^{[note: 64]}.

30 During cross-examination, PW2 confirmed that he had started trailing the white Audi car from the Bukit Timah exit when he was 2 to 3 car length behind the white Audi car until he managed to lock the white Audi car’s speed just before the Cairnhill Road exit^{[note: 65]}. PW2 also confirmed that the white Audi car was within his field of vision throughout the whole period that he was trailing the white Audi car^{[note: 66]}.

31 PW2 testified that he had locked the speed of the white Audi car at the 02.10 mark of Exhibit P2^{[note: 67]} just before the brake light of the white Audi car came on^{[note: 68]}. PW2 also testified that he had locked the speed of the white Audi car just when PW3’s patrol car blinkers came on and just before the white Audi car applied its brakes^{[note: 69]}. PW2 recalled seeing the white Audi car braking. He knew that the white Audi car had braked because he had just locked the white Audi car’s speed and his front blinker lights had turned on. PW2 also saw the patrol car blinker lights turn on^{[note: 70]}. At that point, PW2 was about 3 to 4 car lengths behind the patrol car driven by PW3 and about 1 to 2 car length behind PW1’s motorcycle^{[note: 71]}. PW1 was about 2 to 3 car length behind the patrol car driven by PW3^{[note: 72]}.

32 PW2 also testified that when he locked the digital speedometer of his motorcycle at about the 02.10 mark of Exhibit P2, his front pilot lights were automatically turned on. PW2 also noted that the patrol car blinker lights and PW1’s front blinker lights were also turned on. However, PW2 could not remember if PW1’s rear blinker lights were on^{[note: 73]}.

33 PW2 testified that the white Audi car did slow down after it had applied its brakes in the tunnel. However, PW2 could not determine the speed of the white Audi car at that time because his digital speedometer had frozen at 135 km/h. And although the white Audi car did slow down, it maintained a constant speed from the point it was in the second lane and it maintained its speed even after changing lane to the extreme left lane^{[note: 74]}. PW2 estimated that the white Audi car was travelling about 100 km/h at that point of time^{[note: 75]}.

34 PW2 testified that for purposes of trailing, in order to ensure that his speed was the same as the speed of the white Audi car, he had to keep a constant distance between himself and the white Audi car for a considerable amount of distance before activating a toggle on his motor cycle to freeze the digital speedometer on his motorcycle^{[note: 76]}. PW2 testified that before 9 August 2018, he had done this exercise on about 10 occasions and the speed variance was about plus minus 5 km/h^{[note: 77]}.

35 PW2 also testified that his police motorcycle was fitted with blue and red front blinkers and rear red blinkers^{[note: 78]}. When PW2 locked his digital speedometer using the toggle on his motorcycle, the front blinker lights would turn on automatically^{[note: 79]}. The rear blinkers would need to be turned on manually^{[note: 80]}.

36 PW2 testified that when dealing with speeding offenders, he would usually lock the speed of the offender using his digital speedometer and the front blinkers would come on and PW2 would only turn on his rear blinkers when he was about to engage the offender^{[note: 81]}. In the present case, PW2 only turned on his rear blinkers when he was about to stop his motorcycle along the Buyong exit slip road^{[note: 82]}.

37 PW2 testified that when the blinker lights of PW3’s patrol car came on, the white Audi car did not slow down. PW2 also saw PW1 riding to the side of the white Audi car to signal it to stop. PW2 was on the right side of the white Audi car but he kept a distance away from PW1^{[note: 83]}. PW2 testified that the white Audi car continued to drive off at constant speed even after the patrol car blinkers was switched on^{[note: 84]}.

38 PW2 also testified that as the white Audi car was approaching the Buyong exit slip road, its speed was constant and there was no sign that it was going to stop^{[note: 85]}. PW1 and PW2 were travelling behind the white Audi car^{[note: 86]}. After the white Audi car entered the Buyong exit slip road, before it came to a stop, the white Audi car looked like it was accelerating and PW1 and PW2 had wanted to go faster to engage the white Audi car when the driver of the white Audi car suddenly stopped the vehicle^{[note: 87]}. PW2 saw the white Audi car accelerating before suddenly applying emergency braking^{[note: 88]}. After the white Audi car applied its brakes, it took a few seconds for the white Audi car to come to a stop^{[note: 89]}. PW2 was unable to determine the speed of the white Audi car when it was entering the slip road but it was slower than the speed of 135 km/h that PW2 had clocked the white Audi car while in the Kampong Java tunnel^{[note: 90]}.

39 When the white Audi car applied its brakes along the Buyong exit slip road, PW2 was about 2 to 3 car length behind the white Audi car and PW1 was about 1 to 2 ahead of PW2. PW2 saw PW1 skid and fall off his motorcycle^{[note: 91]}.

40 PW2 also testified that when the white Audi car applied its emergency braking, there was no vehicles in front of the car nor was there any obstruction in front of the car^{[note: 92]}.

41 During cross examination, PW2 reiterated that when the white Audi car entered the Buyong exit slip road, he had observed the white Audi car accelerating for a split second and that was why he also picked up speed to follow the white Audi car. However, the Accused suddenly jammed the brakes of his car^{[note: 93]}. PW2 was puzzled by the Accused’s behaviour because from PW2’s experience, most vehicles which had reacted in that manner would not want to stop suddenly^{[note: 94]}. PW2 also said that he got the impression that the Accused did not want to stop because when the patrol car went to the right side of the Accused’s car and gestured to the Accused to stop whilst in the Kampong Java tunnel, the Accused did not slow down and he continued to drive off at quite a fast speed^{[note: 95]}.

42 After the white Audi car had come to a stop at the Buyong exit slip road, PW2 went up to the Accused, spoke to the Accused and established the Accused's identity. PW2 testified that the Accused smelled strongly of alcohol, his eyes were bloodshot, and his face was flushed. However, the Accused’s gait was steady^{[note: 96]}. PW2 proceeded to administer the breath test on the Accused. The Accused failed the test and he was placed under arrest^{[note: 97]}. PW2 also noted that the Accused had a passenger in the car and when PW2 asked the Accused why he had applied his brakes suddenly, the Accused did not have any answer and he just said “No Sir, I didn’t know”^{[note: 98]}.

PW3 – SSSGT Rafael Tan Soon Peng

43 PW3 was an officer with the Traffic Police in August 2018 and he had been with the Traffic Police for 10 years^{[note: 99]}. PW3 was on duty from the night of 8 August 2018 till the morning of 9 August 2018^{[note: 100]}. PW3 testified that he was driving a patrol car with PW4 as front passenger and he was travelling along the CTE in the direction of AYE at about 3.20 am on 9 August 2018 with PW1 and PW2 when they came across a white Audi car which was travelling along the CTE at a very “fast speed”^{[note: 101]}.

44 PW3 testified that at the relevant time, all of them were in police uniform and PW1 and PW2 were travelling on their own motorcycles^{[note: 102]}.

45 PW3 also testified that the white Audi car was captured by the in-vehicle camera of the patrol car (Exhibit P2) and at the 01.46 mark on Exhibit P2, the white Audi car had made a lane change to the right without giving any signal^{[note: 103]}. PW3 noted that the white Audi car was travelling faster than the general traffic on the road^{[note: 104]}. PW3 estimated that the white Audi car was travelling at about 125 km/h by looking at his patrol car speedometer^{[note: 105]}.

46 PW3 then followed the white Audi car and he flashed his high beam at the white Audi car 3 times^{[note: 106]}. However, there was no change to the Accused’s driving, and he did not slow down^{[note: 107]}. PW3 also testified that the Accused did not slow down after PW3 had high beamed the Accused^{[note: 108]}. After that, PW3 followed the white Audi car until it had entered the Kampong Java tunnel. PW3 testified that at the 02.09 mark in Exhibit P2, he switched on his blinker lights and the white Audi car immediately applied its brake^{[note: 109]}. PW3 said that he had checked the speed of the white Audi car at 135 km/h in the tunnel before the Accused applied the brakes^{[note: 110]}. PW3 had checked the speed of the white Audi car by looking at his speedometer. PW3 testified that he had check his speedometer at around the 02.06 mark in Exhibit P2^{[note: 111]}. During cross-examination, PW3 clarified that his patrol car had reached the 135 km/h mark at about the 02.03 mark in Exhibit P2^{[note: 112]}. PW3 also said that the patrol car was equipped with a speed warning device which would beep if the patrol car was going faster than 130 km/h and PW3 recalled hearing the speed warning device beeping at that point of time^{[note: 113]}. PW3 also clarified during cross-examination that the police had their own guidelines on excessive speed limit and if the speed warding device were to sound, they would have to explain why the speed warning device had been activated^{[note: 114]}.PW3 also testified that the speed warning device would not have sounded if he was travelling below 130 km/h^{[note: 115]}.

47 PW3 also testified that at the 02.06 mark in Exhibit P2, the white Audi car was travelling on the second lane and PW3 was travelling at less than 1 car length behind the white Audi car and he was maintaining the same speed at the white Audi car. PW3 also said that the white Audi car was not slowing down as he would have also slowed down to maintain the same distance between himself and the white Audi car^{[note: 116]}. PW3 then changed lane from the centre lane to the right lane and overtook the white Audi car from the right and he tried to get the attention of the Accused^{[note: 117]}. PW3 also disagreed with the Defence’s suggestion that he had switched from the 1^st to the 2^nd lane because the Accused had noticed his high beam^{[note: 118]}. At the 02.18 mark in Exhibit P2, PW3 went side by side with the white Audi car and he sounded the air horn of the patrol car.

48 PW3 said that the air horn was different from the normal steering horn and it was similar to the police siren and it was much louder as it was switched on with a rumbler^{[note: 119]}.PW3 also explained that a rumbler was a low tone vibrator which accompanied a normal siren^{[note: 120]}. PW3 said that motorists in the nearby vehicles would be able to feel the vibrations even if their stereo was blasting loud music^{[note: 121]}. PW3 testified that when he sounded his air horn, the Accused did not even look at him^{[note: 122]}.

49 PW3 also said that the patrol car was equipped with a radar gun but it was not in use at that point of time^{[note: 123]}. PW3 clarified that the radar gun could be used when the patrol car was both stationary and moving. However, in the present case, the radar gun was not switched on because they were on their way to conduct a roadblock operation and they did not intend to use the radar gun for a speed operation. In the present, PW3 had just chanced upon the white Audi car. PW3 also testified that in order to use the radar gun, they would need to pre-set the speed they wanted to capture, and they would also need to set the radar gun to either moving or stationary mode^{[note: 124]}. PW3 also clarified that it was impossible to set up the radar gun when he was pursuing the white Audi car at high speed^{[note: 125]}.

50 PW3 also testified that his patrol car was also equipped with a rear in-vehicle camera and it had recorded footage of his encounter with the white Audi car (Exhibit P3)^{[note: 126]}. PW3 said that Exhibit P3 had managed to capture the white Audi car approaching the Buying exit slip road and it appeared that the white Audi was accelerating as it was approaching the slip road^{[note: 127]}.

51 At that point of time, PW3 was on the centre lane and the white Audi car had moved to the left lane^{[note: 128]}. PW3 was anticipating that the white Audi car would continue to travel along the CTE^{[note: 129]} but the white Audi car suddenly applied its brakes abruptly and entered the Buyong exit slip road^{[note: 130]}. PW3 also had to apply hard braking to his patrol car so that he could enter the slip road as well^{[note: 131]}. PW3 had to reduce the speed of the patrol car significantly, move from lane 2 to lane 1, and cross the chevron marking in order to go into the slip road^{[note: 132]}. PW3 could tell that he had applied hard braking because the in-vehicle camera of his patrol car had tipped forward^{[note: 133]}. PW3 could not recall the speed of his patrol car when he did that but he was of the view that it was slower than the time he had speed checked the white Audi car in the tunnel. PW3 estimated that he was going at 90 to 100 km/h at that point of time^{[note: 134]}. PW3 had also noticed that the Accused had applied hard braking and had released his brakes as he entered the slip road^{[note: 135]}.

52 During cross-examination, PW3 clarified that as they exited the Kampong Java tunnel, he was about 3 to 4 car lengths ahead of the white Audi car and he was travelling at about 90 to 100 km/h. PW3 knew that the Accused was driving at a faster speed because he could see the Accused catching up on him and narrowing the distance between them from his side mirror^{[note: 136]}.

53 PW3 also testified that after the Accused had stopped the white Audi car at the Buyong exit slip road, when PW3 opened the door of the white Audi car, he could smell a strong stench of alcohol coming from the car. PW3 also said that the Accused had smelled of alcohol breath when he was engaging the Accused^{[note: 137]}.

PW4 – SI Muhammad Suryadi

54 PW4 had been a police officer for 17 years and he was attached to the Traffic Police in August 2018^{[note: 138]}. PW4 was on duty from 8 August 2018 to 9 August 2018. PW3 was the front passenger in the patrol car driven by PW3 and he was travelling along CTE at around 3.20 am on 9 August 2018 when he came across a white Audi car. PW4 had noticed the white Audi car because it was travelling “faster than the general motorist”^{[note: 139]}. PW4 testified that he had noticed that the Accused was travelling “faster than normal” from the Bukit Timah exit till the entrance of the Kampong Java tunnel and the Accused was maintaining his speed throughout that distance^{[note: 140]}.

55 PW4 was together with PW1, PW2 and PW3 that night and he was the highest-ranking officer amongst the 4 of them^{[note: 141]}. On seeing the white Audi car, PW4 communicated with PW1 and PW2 through the police communication device to look out for the white Audi car for possible traffic offences^{[note: 142]}.

56 PW4 confirmed that PW3 did pull up alongside the white Audi car in the Kampong Java tunnel. When PW3 was alongside the white Audi car, PW3 had activated his siren to warn the Accused. PW4 also said when PW3 activated the siren, both the blinker lights and the normal police car siren sound turned on^{[note: 143]}.

57 PW4 testified that when PW3 was behind the white Audi car, he turned on the blinker lights of the patrol car to warn the white Audi car^{[note: 144]}.After that PW3 changed lanes to the right and pulled alongside the white Audi car. When PW3 was alongside the white Audi car, he proceeded to sound his horn. PW4 said that the sound of the horn was a horn together with the sound of siren^{[note: 145]}.

58 PW4 also testified that when he saw PW1 fall off his motorcycle, he had contacted the ops room to activate an ambulance to assist PW1^{[note: 146]}.

59 During cross-examination, PW4 testified that:

(a) He was not able to see how fast PW3 was driving because he was unable to see the speedometer of the patrol car from where he was sitting^{[note: 147]}.

(b) Before PW3 turned on the blinker lights of the patrol car, PW3 had high beamed the white Audi car^{[note: 148]}.

(c) PW4 recalled seeing the Accused applying the brakes and momentarily slowdown in the Kampong Java tunnel but he was unable to recall if the Accused did slowdown or accelerated after that^{[note: 149]}.

(d) PW4 also saw the Accused applying sudden braking before he drove the white Audi car into the Buyong exit slip road^{[note: 150]}.

PW5 – SI Jackson Mu Wei Jun

60 PW5 was the investigating officer in charge of this matter. PW5 testified that Exhibit P6 showed the distance from the VMS Board, where the white Audi car was first spotted till the entrance of the Kampong Java tunnel and the distance was 701.35 metres^{[note: 151]}.

61 With reference to Exhibit P2, PW5 clarified that the white Audi car had crossed the VMS board at the 01.40 mark and had reached the entrance of the Kampong Java tunnel at the 02.01 mark in Exhibit P2^{[note: 152]}. PW3 also clarified that the speed limit in Kampong Java tunnel was 80 km/h^{[note: 153]}.

62 PW5 also testified that Exhibit P7 was the arrest report of the Accused and Exhibit P7 stated that the Accused had failed the Alcoliser Test with 5 attempts. PW5 clarified that the Alcoliser Test referred to the handheld breathalyser test conducted at the scene^{[note: 154]}. PW5 also said that for the handheld breathalyser test, there was no numerical result shown on the device and the numeric result could only be churned from the Breath Evidential Analyser test which was administered at the Traffic Police office at 10 Ubi Ave 3 Singapore.

63 In the present case, the Breath Evidential Analyser test was administered on the Accused at 4.49 am and the test was completed at 4.54 am. PW5 testified that the test result was 67 microgram per 100 ml^{[note: 155]}.

64 PW5 also tendered a copy of the Accused’s Criminal Record screening (Exhibit P9) which showed that the Accused was previously convicted of driving without consideration on 16 September 2015 and he was fined $600 by the courts^{[note: 156]}.

65 In cross-examination, PW5 clarified that:

(a) He had only applied for PW1’s in-vehicle camera and he did not apply for PW2’s in-vehicle camera because PW2 was not the involved person^{[note: 157]}. PW5 also said that he had subsequently tried to locate PW2’s camera footage but it had been overwritten as the incident was back in 2018^{[note: 158]}.

(b) PW5 also said that he was aware that PW1’s camera had frozen but he was not aware of the reason why it had frozen. PW5 said that the footage was given to him in this condition. PW5 did check with the officer who had downloaded the footage, but the officer also did not know why the footage was like that^{[note: 159]}.

(c) PW5 also disagreed with the Defence’s suggestion that the Accused was travelling at an average speed of 85 km/h from the start of the Kampong Java tunnel till the Buyong exit slip road^{[note: 160]}.

(d) PW5 also disagreed with the Defence’s suggestion that PW1 was involved in the accident solely because of his lack or failure to exercise proper care and control of his motorcycle as expected of a reasonable motorcycle rider^{[note: 161]}. PW5 explained that all police officers had to undergo specialised training on how to manoeuvre and manage high speed chases and they had been trained to handle situations like the present situation. If the danger was imminent, the officers were taught to take evasive action that would result in them falling off their motorcycle^{[note: 162]}. PW5 clarified that when an officer had no choice, he had to fall because if he did not fall, the direct impact with the vehicle would be more devasting^{[note: 163]}.

66 I noted that the Prosecution had recalled PW5 as a rebuttal witness. PW5 had recorded the Accused’s statement (Exhibit P11A). Exhibit P11A was the handwritten statement which PW5 had recorded from the Accused while Exhibit P11B was the typed transcript of Exhibit P11A^{[note: 164]}. PW5 testified that he had prepared Exhibit P11B so that it was more presentable to the court^{[note: 165]}. PW5 also clarified that there were the following typographical errors in Exhibit P11B^{[note: 166]}:

(a) There was an extra “D” in the word “accelerate” in Question 4.

(b) There was typographical error in Question 6. The word should be “FOR” and not “FRO”.

(c) The last part of the transcript contained the wrong words “The above statement is given by me and I affirmed it to be true and correct”. The correct words should be “The statement was read over to me in English and I affirmed it to be true and correct”.

(d) There was a typographical error in Question 6.

67 PW5 also testified that Exhibit P11A was not the first police statement that he had recorded from the Accused and it was not meant to capture the Accused’s account for the entire case and everything which had happened on 9 August 2018^{[note: 167]}.

68 For Exhibit P11A, PW5 had arrived at the Accused’s home at about 6 plus in the evening on 9 August 2018 and he had knocked on the Accused’s door and had rang the doorbell. The Accused was asleep at that time. An elderly lady opened the door. PW5 identified himself as a police officer and requested the lady to arrange for the Accused to meet him on the ground floor near the guard-post. The Accused came down a while later and PW5 identified himself to the Accused. PW5 said that he had waited about 10 to 20 minutes for the Accused to come down from his apartment^{[note: 168]}. PW5 then explained to the Accused the reason for his visit and he proceeded to record the Accused’s statement. PW5 testified that he wrote down the Accused’s particulars and proceeded to administer the warning to the Accused before recording his statement^{[note: 169]}.

69 PW5 testified that he had recorded the Accused’s statement in Exhibit P11A using the question and answer format. PW5 would write down the question, pose the question to the Accused and write down the Accused’s answer before moving on the next question^{[note: 170]}. PW5 also explained that both of them were standing and facing each other when the statement was being recorded and PW5 wrote down everything that the Accused had said in the presence of the Accused^{[note: 171]}.

70 PW5 testified that the Accused’s demeanour was normal throughout the statement recording process and he noticed “nothing out of the blue”.^{[note: 172]} PW5 also said that the Accused was not intoxicated to the extent that he was falling asleep or aggressive and the conversation between the two of them was normal^{[note: 173]}.

71 As regards to the contents of Exhibit P11A, PW5 testified that:

(a) Regarding the Accused’s answer to Question 1 in Exhibit P11A, the Accused did not say that he saw the blinkers at the start of the tunnel. PW5 said he had recorded what the Accused had told him^{[note: 174]}.

(b) Regarding Question 2 in Exhibit P11A, PW5 said that he did not tell the Accused that his speed was captured at 135 km/h at the Buyong exit slip road. PW5 said that Question 2 was a general question and he was not referring to any specific location along the CTE^{[note: 175]}.

(c) PW5 also testified that in the course of his investigation, the Accused had never informed him that he had checked his speedometer at the start of the tunnel and the Accused did not give him this information when he was recording Exhibit P11A from the Accused^{[note: 176]}. PW5 also said that the Accused had never informed him that he was travelling at 100 plus km/h at the start of the tunnel^{[note: 177]}.

72 During cross-examination, PW5 testified that:

(a) He could not have informed the Accused that his speed of 135 km/h was captured at the Buyong exit slip road because he was never briefed by the police officers that the speed of 135 km/h was captured at the Buyong exit slip road. PW5 was briefed by the police officers that the Accused’s speed of 135 km/h was captured in the Kampong Java tunnel^{[note: 178]}.

(b) Exhibits D2 and D3 were previous charges that were drawn by PW6 and PW5 was not able to explain why PW6 had drafted Exhibits D2 and D3 to state that the location of the offences was at the Buyong exit slip road^{[note: 179]}.

(c) PW5 disagreed with the Defence’s suggestion that his initial case against the Accused was that the Accused was speeding at 135 km/h at the Buyong exit slip road^{[note: 180]}. PW5 also disagreed with the Defence that at the time of the recording of Exhibit P11A, he had been briefed that the Accused had been driving at a speed of 135 km/h at the Buyong exit slip road and he had told the Accused during the recording of exhibit P11A that the Accused was speeding at 135 km/h at the Buyong exit slip road when the incident happened^{[note: 181]}. PW5 said that he could not have told the Accused that he was travelling at 135 km/h at the Buyong exit slip road because the information that he had gathered before meeting the Accused was that the speeding was committed in the Kampong Java tunnel^{[note: 182]}.

(d) PW5 also said that it was unlikely that he had discussed the accident involving PW1 when he was recording Exhibit P11A from the Accused because there was no mention of PW1 being injured in Exhibit P11A^{[note: 183]}.

(e) PW5 also clarified that he had asked the Accused about blinker lights and sudden braking in Exhibit P11A because he had been briefed by the police officers on the same before he went to interview the Accused^{[note: 184]}.

PW6 – SI Nor Affendi bin Jaffar

73 PW6 was also called by the Prosecution as a rebuttal witness. PW6 was attached to the drink driving investigation team in August 2018^{[note: 185]} and he had drafted the initial charges in Exhibits D2 And D3 which were served on the Accused. PW6 testified that he had received a call from PW5 on 14 January 2019 and PW5 had requested him to help him serve a charge on the Accused^{[note: 186]}. PW6 also confirmed that he was not the investigating officer in charge of the Accused’s case^{[note: 187]}. PW6 confirmed that he had drafted Exhibit D2 and he had served Exhibit D2 on the Accused. PW6 also acknowledged that the location of the incident that he had drafted in Exhibit D2 stated “along the AYE slip road into Buyong Road” and this was different from the location of the incident in DAC 901382 of 2019 which was stated as “along the tunnel in CTE towards AYE”^{[note: 188]}.

74 PW6 testified that when PW5 requested him to draft and serve Exhibit D2 on the Accused, he had made reference to 2 earlier charges against the Accused, namely Exhibit P12, and he had followed the timing and location which were stated on the 2 earlier charges and used the same in Exhibit D2^{[note: 189]}. PW6 said that he had wrongly assumed that the location of the incident at Exhibit D2 was the same as the location in Exhibit P12^{[note: 190]}.

75 PW6 also clarified that he had retrieved Exhibit P12 from the Investigation Papers and not from ICMS^{[note: 191]}.

76 During cross-examination, PW6 clarified that:

(a) He did not check or show Exhibit D2 to PW5 before he served Exhibit D2 on the Accused and he had assumed that the location of the incident was the same as that in Exhibit P12 when he drafted Exhibit D2. PW6 also acknowledged that he had made a mistake as to the location of the incident in Exhibit D2^{[note: 192]}.

(b) PW6 also clarified that in addition to Exhibit D2, he had also drafted and served Exhibit D3 on the Accused^{[note: 193]}.

Exhibits P1, P2 and P3 – in-vehicle footages from PW1’s motorcycle and PW3’s patrol car

77 The Prosecution had also tendered 3 in-vehicle footages from PW1’s motorcycle and PW3’s patrol car. The 3 footages had been admitted and marked as Exhibits P1, P2 and P3. I had viewed all 3 footages and I noted the following events which were captured on the footages:

(a) Events captured on Exhibit P1

S/N	Time as shown in Exhibit P1 (the front in-vehicle camera of PW1’s motorcycle)	Event
1	03.17.15	PW1 was travelling behind PW3 on the 3rd rightmost lane of CTE
2	03.17.20	The white Audi car (“Audi”) was in front of a red taxi in the middle lane (2nd lane) and going faster than the general traffic
3	03.17.24	The Audi cut into the 3rd lane without signalling in front of a yellow taxi which was travelling on the 3rd lane
4	03.17.25	PW3’s patrol car which was in front of PW1 overtook the yellow taxi from the middle lane to give chase to the Audi. PW1 followed PW3 into the middle lane.
5	03.17.29	PW3’s patrol car signalled right and cut back into the 3rd lane in front of the yellow taxi
6	03.17.30	PW1 cut into the 1st left lane to give chase to the Audi car
7	03.17.40	PW1’s blue pilot lights came on, just before the entrance of the tunnel. PW1 had locked the Audi’s speed at this point of time (at playing time 02.39 of Exhibit P1). PW1 was travelling on the 1st left lane when he locked the Audi’s speed. The Audi was travelling on the middle land and PW3 was behind the Audi.
8	03.17.47	PW3’s patrol car’s blinkers were turned on. It was behind the Audi
9	03.17.48	The Audi applied its brakes for a spilt second
10	03.17.51	PW1 went to the left of the Audi. The Audi was on his right and in the middle lane.
11	03.17.53 to 03.18.04	PW1 kept to the 1st left lane while travelling in the tunnel
12	03.18.05	Near the end of the tunnel, PW3’s patrol car moved from the 3rd lane to the 2nd middle lane. PW1 was still in 1st lane. PW3’s patrol car blinkers were on.
13	03.18.07	After exiting the tunnel, PW1 could be seen slowing down and moving towards the breakdown lane just after the exit of the tunnel.
14	03.18.11	The Audi overtook PW1’s motorcycle from the middle lane. PW3’s patrol car was still in front of the Audi in the middle lane
15	03.18.12	The Audi was signalling left and moved to the 1st left lane and continued moving ahead
16	03.18.13 to 03.18.28	Audi continued moving ahead along the 1st left lane with no sign that it was slowing down.
17	03.18.28	PW1’s video footage froze

(b) Events captured on Exhibit P2

S/No	Time as shown in Exhibit P2 (the front in-vehicle camera of PW3’s patrol car)	Event
1	00.23	PW3’s patrol car entering the CTE.
2	01.38	PW3 saw the Audi in front of the red taxi. The Audi was travelling at a very fast speed in the middle lane. PW3 was travelling on the 3rd lane.
3	01.43	Audi picked up speed in the 2nd lane and cut in from of the yellow taxi in the 3rd lane without signalling. PW3 started to chase the Audi.
4	01.45	PW3 switched to the middle lane to overtake the yellow taxi in order to chase the Audi.
5	01.47	The Audi continue travelling in the 3rd lane at fast speed. The Audi could be seen travelling much faster than the cars around it.
6	01.52	PW3 switched to the 3rd lane to follow the Audi.
7	01.55 to 01.58	The Audi switched to the middle lane just under the AYE signage and before the entrance to the tunnel. PW3 followed behind the Audi.
8	01.54	PW3 high-beamed the Audi. Both cars were travelling in the 2nd lane.
9	01.57	PW3 high-beamed the Audi a second time.
10	01.59	PW3 high-beamed the Audi a third time. This was just before the entrance to the tunnel.
11	02.08	PW3’s blinker lights came on and remained on.
12	02.10	Audi could be seen applying its brakes.
13	02.13 to 02.25	PW3 overtook the Audi from the 3rd lane. The Audi was still in the second middle lane. PW3 kept on par with the Audi.
14	02.26 to 02.48	Towards the end of the tunnel, PW3 switched to the second middle lane and continued travelling along the second middle lane.
15	02.49	PW3 could be seen filtering to the 1st lane just before the chevron marking at the Buyong exit slip road.
16	02.51	The Audi could be seen exiting the Buyong exit slip road with PW1 following the Audi. PW1 was about one and a half car lengths behind the Audi.
17	02.52 to 02.54	The Audi’s brake lights came on and went off. PW1 could be seen falling off his motorcycle.
18	02.53	PW2 can be seen following behind PW1 with his blinker lights turned on. PW3 made a sharp turn from CTE into Buyong exit slip road cutting across the chevron marking.
19	02.59	The Audi stopped about 3 to 4 car lengths from where PW1 had fallen. The position of the Audi when it stopped was in the middle of the slip road and more towards the right side of the road.
20	02.52	PW3 could be seen making a sharp turn from the 1st lane and cutting across the chevron marking and turning into the Buyong exit slip road.

(c) Events captured on Exhibit P3

S/No	Time as shown in Exhibit P3 (the rear in-vehicle camera of PW3’s patrol car)	Event
1	00.00 to 00.02	PW3 could be seen travelling in the middle lane. PW1 was travelling behind PW3 on the left lane with his blinker lights turned on.
2	00.03	PW1 overtook PW3. PW3 was still in the middle lane. PW1 overtook PW3 from the 1st left lane.
3	00.04	PW3 could be seen filtering into the 3rd lane.
4	00.04 to 00.18	PW3 continued to travel along the 3rd lane.
5	00.18	The Audi could be seen travelling on the middle lane.
6	00.19	PW3 overtook the Audi from the 3rd lane. At this point of time, the Audi was in the middle lane and PW1 was on the left lane next to the Audi and PW1 could be seen looking at the Audi. This was just before the end of the tunnel.
7	00.20	PW3 cut in front of the Audi into the middle lane just at the end of the tunnel. We could see the Audi with PW1 on the left of the Audi. The Audi was in the middle lane and PW1 was still in the 1st left lane.
8	00.21	The Audi and PW1 could be seen coming out of Kampong Java tunnel. PW3 continued to travel on the middle lane.
9	00.23	PW1 could be seen slowing down and he was signalling and moving towards the road shoulder.
10	00.23 to 00.25	The Audi could be seen moving at the same speed. It was not slowing down. The Audi filtered to the 1st left lane and continued moving.
11	00.25 to 00.41	The Audi did not stop at the road shoulder. It continued to travel along the 1st lane until it reached the Buyong exit slip road.
12	00.41 to 00.42	The Audi turned into the Buyong exit slip road. There was no signal light from the Audi to indicate that it was turning left into the Buyong exit slip road. PW1 who was about 2 cars length behind the Audi was signalling to turn into the slip road
13	00.42 to 00.44	PW2 could be seen about 2 car lengths behind PW1
14	00.44 to 00.46	PW3 made a sharp turn to the left to turn into the Buyong exit slip road cutting across the chevron marking.

78 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 both the proceeded charges and I thereby called the Accused to enter his defence.

Defence’s evidence and exhibits

79 The Accused had decided to take the stand to give his evidence in support of his defence after I had called for his defence. Other than the Accused himself, the Defence had also called Lee Noeul (“DW2”), who was a passenger in the Accused’s car at the time of the incident, to give evidence on behalf of the Accused.

80 In addition, the Defence had also tendered a total of 3 sets of exhibits in support of the Accused’s defence:

No.	Exhibit	Exhibit Marking
1	4 photographs printed from Google Map	D1
2	Charge relating to the offence under section 63(4) of the Road Traffic Act prepared by PW6	D2
3	Charge relating to DAC 901382-2019 prepared by PW6	D3

81 The Defence’s evidence could be summarised as follows:

DW1 – the Accused

82 The Accused confirmed that he was driving along the Kampong Java tunnel around 3 to 4 am on the 9 of August 2018^{[note: 194]}. The Accused testified that he was driving above 100 km/h between the Bukit Timah exit and the entrance of the Kampong Java tunnel^{[note: 195]} but he denied that he was travelling at 135 km/h while he was in the Kampong Java tunnel^{[note: 196]}. The Accused said that he was sure that he was not travelling above 130 km/h as he had driven at that speed on the Autobahn in Germany and he knew how 130 km/h felt like^{[note: 197]}. The Accused said that other than Germany, the Accused had never driven at 135 km/h at any other parts of the world^{[note: 198]}. The Accused also said that throughout his entire journey along the CTE, he had taken slight glances at the speedometer of his white Audi car and the speedometer did not show that he was travelling at 130 km/h^{[note: 199]}.

83 The Accused testified that when he was travelling on the stretch of the CTE between the Bukit Timah exit and the entrance of Kampong Java tunnel, he had overtaken a vehicle on the right lane of the CTE when he noticed a police patrol car closing in from behind him. The police patrol car was travelling at a very fast speed and it came very close behind the Accused’s white Audi car. The Accused thought that the police patrol car was trying to pass him. So, the Accused signalled left to go into the middle lane instead of remaining in the right most lane of the CTE to let the police car pass^{[note: 200]}.

84 After the Accused had moved to the centre lane, he realised that the police patrol car had slowed down and had also moved into the centre lane behind his white Audi car. Subsequently, the police patrol car turned on its blinker lights and the Accused slowed down his white Audi car and signalled towards the left^{[note: 201]}.

85 After that, the Accused realised that there was police motorcycle to his left with its blinker lights on. The Accused testified that he was able to see the police motorcycle through his passenger side window and he saw the police officer on the motorcycle gesturing at him to pull over. The Accused said that he could hear the police officer on the police motorcycle shouting or saying something like “Pull over”.^{[note: 202]}. The Accused also said that he wound down his passenger side window to acknowledge the police officer and he signalled left to show his intention of stopping his white Audi car according to the police officer’s instruction^{[note: 203]}. The Accused said that he had acknowledged the police officer by looking at the police officer and nodding his head^{[note: 204]}.

86 The police officer on the motorcycle then slowed down and allowed the Accused to pass him and filter into the left lane. The Accused also did not stop immediately after he had filtered to the leftmost lane because he noticed that the road shoulder was very narrow, and it was not big enough to fit a car^{[note: 205]}. The Accused was near the end of the Kampong Java tunnel at that point of time^{[note: 206]}.

87 After the Accused exited the Kampong Java tunnel, he thought that since he was on an expressway, it was not safe and wise of him to stop at a road shoulder which was not wide enough to fit the size of his white Audi car. At the same time, as the Accused was slowing down, he also realised that the Buyong slip road exit was just right ahead and he decided that it would be better for him to stop his white Audi car at the Buyong exit slip road^{[note: 207]}.

88 The Accused testified that after leaving the Kampong Java tunnel, because he had slowed down and had signalled left, he was only travelling at about 70 to 80 km/h^{[note: 208]}. The Accused then decided to move towards the Buyong exit slip road and he turned into the Buyong exit slip road before stopping his car along the Buyong exit slip road. The Accused said that he had stopped his white Audi car along the Buyong exit slip road normally and he did not jam his brakes in order to stop his car along the slip road^{[note: 209]}. The Accused also testified that it was only after he had stopped his white Audi car at the Buyong exit slip road that he realised that a police motorcycle had fallen behind his car^{[note: 210]}. The Accused also did not experience any hit or bump at the rear of his car when he stopped his car in the Buyong exit slip road^{[note: 211]}.

89 After the Accused had stopped his car, he alighted his car and he wanted to go over to the fallen police officer to help him. However, he was stopped by PW2 and some other police officers, The Accused also inspected the rear of his white Audi car and he did not see any damage to the rear of his car^{[note: 212]}. The Accused spoke to PW2 after he had alighted from his car and PW2 had asked him why he had e-braked. The Accused told PW2 that he did not e-brake^{[note: 213]}. Subsequently, the Accused was arrested and brought back to the police station^{[note: 214]}.

90 The Accused said that he was not driving at a speed of 135 km/h and he did not drive negligently so as to cause PW1 to fall from his motorcycle^{[note: 215]}. The Accused also said he had complied with PW1’s instruction all the way from the start till the end of Kampong Java tunnel and that he had driven in a careful manner, including gradual lane changing and signalling ahead until he reached the Buyong exit slip road^{[note: 216]}. The Accused also said that he did not accelerate before applying his brakes at the Buyong exit slip road^{[note: 217]}.

91 In cross-examination, the Accused testified that:

(a) At the time of the incident, the Accused was a banker with UOB Bank and he was the driver of the white Audi car at the material time^{[note: 218]}. The Accused also confirmed that the white Audi car was working properly at the time of the incident and there was no mechanical fault with the car^{[note: 219]}.

(b) On 9 August 2018, the Accused was at Balmoral Plaza just past midnight and around 3 am, he was planning to head towards a club at the Clarke Quay area. The Accused also confirmed that DW2 was the female passenger in his car at the time of the incident^{[note: 220]}.

(c) In order to get to Clarke Quay, the Accused had intended to travel along CTE in the direction of AYE, go pass Exit 6, which was the Bukit Timah exit, go through the Kampong Java tunnel and past Exit 5, which was the Cairnhill Road exit which was located in the middle of the tunnel, go past Exit 4, which was the Buyong Road exit and exit the CTE at Exit 2, which was the Havelock exit^{[note: 221]}.

(d) As regards to Exhibit P2, the Accused testified that:

(i) The Accused had realised that there were police vehicles chasing him before he had entered the Kampong Java tunnel but at that point, he did not think that he needed to stop for the patrol car^{[note: 222]}.

(ii) The Accused knew that there was a police patrol car behind him at the 01.52 mark of Exhibit P2 but he did not know that the patrol car was chasing him^{[note: 223]}.

(iii) The Accused said that he only knew that the police vehicles were targeting his vehicle when the patrol car turned on its blinker lights at the 02.09 mark of Exhibit P2^{[note: 224]}.

(iv) The Accused also confirmed that the traffic along the CTE was light on the night of the incident and there were no cars near the Accused’s white Audi car when the police vehicles approached his vehicle^{[note: 225]}. However, during re-examination, the Accused clarified that there was one car which was ahead of his car when he was in the Kampong Java tunnel and because the patrol car was very close to him with its blinker lights turned on, the Accused was unsure if there were other vehicles around him^{[note: 226]}.

(v) The Accused also saw the patrol car high beaming him 3 times before he entered the Kampong Java tunnel^{[note: 227]}. The Accused said that he had realised that the patrol car was high beaming him when he was travelling along the 3^rd lane of the CTE. The Accused thought that the patrol car had wanted him to move out of the patrol car’s way and he switched lane to the middle lane. When the Accused moved to the middle lane, the patrol car followed him to the middle lane and high-beamed the Accused’s vehicle again. The Accused said that he did not know why the patrol car was high beaming him until the patrol car turned on its blinker lights and that was when he realised that the patrol car was targeting him^{[note: 228]}. It was at this point of time that the Accused had formed the intention to stop his car for the police^{[note: 229]}.

(e) The Accused also said that he did not see PW1 turn on his blinker lights as he was only paying attention to PW3’s patrol car and he could only see the blinker lights of PW3’s patrol car^{[note: 230]}.

(f) The Accused also said that after the blinker lights of the patrol car were turned on, the Accused noticed PW1 pulling up to the left side of his car. The Accused remembered seeing PW1 gesturing at him, but he did not recall hearing PW1 sound his horn. The Accused made eye contact with PW1 and he saw PW1 use a hand gesture to signal him to pull over^{[note: 231]}.

(g) The Accused also confirmed that at that point of time, PW3’s patrol car was still behind his car^{[note: 232]}. The Accused could not recall if the patrol car had turned on its siren when it turned on its blinker lights, but he believed that the sirens were on^{[note: 233]}.

(h) The Accused also confirmed that the patrol car did pull up to the right side of his car, but he did not recall hearing the patrol car sound its air horn. The Accused also said that he did not fell the vibration from the air horn on the day of the incident^{[note: 234]}.

(i) The Accused also confirmed that he did not stop his white Audi car after his encounter with PW1 and PW3 and he continued to drive through the tunnel until he reached the Buyong slip road exit^{[note: 235]}.

(j) The Accused said that after the patrol car had turned on its blinker lights and PW1 had gestured him to pull over, the Accused slowed down and filtered to the 3rd left lane. The Accused did not filter to the left lane immediately after he exited the tunnel because PW1 was on the left of his rear. When PW1 slowed down for him to filter into the 3^rd left lane, he kept a certain distance just in case PW1 need to go to the side of his car again^{[note: 236]}.

(k) The Accused did not stop his car at the road shoulder because he realised that the road shoulder was too narrow for his to stop his car as it could not fit the whole of his car^{[note: 237]}. The Accused also said that he knew that PW1 had slowed down along the road shoulder after the exit of the tunnel to indicate to him to pull over^{[note: 238]}. However, the Accused continued to drive ahead^{[note: 239]} and he decided to stop at the Buyong exit slip road because the road shoulder after the exit of the tunnel “can’t barely fit a motorcycle”^{[note: 240]}.

(l) The Accused also said that the speed that he was driving near the Buyong exit slip road was much slower that the speed that he was driving when he exited the Kampong Java tunnel^{[note: 241]}. The Accused did not agree with the Prosecution’s suggestion that he was travelling at a speed of about 90 to 100 km/h from the point he exited the Kampong Java tunnel^{[note: 242]}. The Accused said that although Exhibit P1 did not show him applying the brakes on his car, he had taken his foot off the accelerator and the car was slowing down^{[note: 243]}. The Accused said that Exhibit P1 also did not show the white Audi car jerking forward which would have confirmed that he did accelerate after that^{[note: 244]}.

(m) The Accused said that he had formed the intention to turn into the Buyong exit slip road at the 03.18.26 mark of Exhibit P1^{[note: 245]}. The Accused said that he had the intention to stop at the Buyong exit slip road all the while. When PW1 allowed him to keep left, he made a gradual turn to the left and he did not make any sudden swerve to the left and he also did not switch lane suddenly and cut into the slip road quickly at a fast speed^{[note: 246]}. The Accused also said that it was safer to stop his car at the slip road because there were fast moving vehicles on the CTE and the slip road would have slower moving vehicles^{[note: 247]}. During re-examination, the Accused clarified that he had formed the intention to stop at the Buyong exit slip road when he exited the Kampong Java tunnel. The Accused decided that since he was approaching the Buyong exit slip road, it would be better for him to stop his car after exiting the expressway^{[note: 248]}.

(n) The Accused confirmed that when he went into the Buyong exit slip road, there were no cars or obstruction in front of his car when he stopped his car^{[note: 249]}. The Accused also confirmed that he knew that PW1 was on his motorcycle and he was very close to the rear of the Accused’s car when he entered the Buyong slip road^{[note: 250]}. The Accused also said that he had known that PW1 was either beside or behind him with the blinker lights of his motorcycle turned on all the way from the middle of the Kampong Java tunnel till the Buyong exit slip road. The Accused also knew that PW2 was also following him but PW1 was closer to him^{[note: 251]}.

(o) The Accused also confirmed that he knew that PW1 was close to the rear of his car when he applied the brakes to his car at the Buyong slip road. However, the Accused denied that he was travelling at a fast speed and that he had applied hard braking in order to stop his car at the Buyong exit slip road^{[note: 252]}. The Accused said that he had applied his brakes gradually until he came to a stop^{[note: 253]}.

(p) As regard to the speed of the white Audi car, the Accused testified that when he was driving towards the entrance of Kampong Java tunnel, he was travelling at slightly above 100 km/h^{[note: 254]}. The Accused said that he had glanced at his speedometer as he was approaching the entrance of the Kampong Java tunnel and he saw the speedometer showing 100 plus km/h. After the Accused entered the Kampong Java tunnel, he did not look at his speedometer when he was in the tunnel^{[note: 255]}.

(q) Regarding Exhibits P11A and P11B, the Accused said that Exhibit P11A was recorded outside his residence near the guard post at the entrance of the condominium at 1847 hours on 9 August 2018^{[note: 256]}. The Accused also said that both he and PW5 were standing when Exhibit P11A was recorded^{[note: 257]}. The Accused also had the following comments on Exhibit P11A:

(i) In Exhibit P11A, the Accused’s statement was that he saw blinkers and heard sirens towards the end of the tunnel. The Accused’s testimony in court was that he had seen the police blinker lights and heard the siren somewhere at the start of the tunnel. The Accused clarified that he had told PW5 during the recording to Exhibit P11A that he had seen the blinker lights and heard the sirens at the start of the tunnel but PW5 had wrongly recorded it as “at the end” of the tunnel^{[note: 258]}. The Accused also said that even though he had signed Exhibit P11A, he did not note the mistake when he read and signed Exhibit P11A^{[note: 259]}.

(ii) The Accused also clarified that in Question 3 of Exhibit P11A, he did inform PW5 that he had seen the police asking him to stop at the start of the tunnel but PW5 had wrongly recorded him as saying “at the end of tunnel”^{[note: 260]}.

(r) The Prosecution had also pointed out to the Accused that he had given testimony in court that before he entered the tunnel, he had looked at his speedometer and he saw that his speed was 100 plus km/h. However, in Exhibit P11A, the Accused had in his answer to Question 2, told PW5 that he did not know what speed he was driving at and he thought that he was driving at normal speed^{[note: 261]}. The Accused said that he could not recall inform PW5 that he was driving at 100 plus km/h before the start of the tunnel^{[note: 262]}.

(s) The Accused also said that when PW5 was asking him Question 2, PW5 had told the Accused that he was captured driving at 135 km/h at the exit where PW1 had fallen^{[note: 263]}.

(t) The Accused also testified that on the night of the incident, his speed from the start of the Kampong Java tunnel till the Buyong exit slip road was not consistent and his speed at the Buyong exit slip road was slower than his speed at the start of the tunnel^{[note: 264]}.

DW2 – Lee Noeul

92 DW2, a Korean national, was working as a salesperson in a company by the name of Tape. DW2 confirmed that she was a passenger in the Accused’s car at about 3 am on 9 August 2018^{[note: 265]}. DW2 testified that she had returned home after having a meal with a friend on 8 August 2018 when she received a phone call from the Accused inviting her to go to Zouk nightclub with him. DW2 was in the Accused’s car and they were on their way to the nightclub when in the Kampong Java tunnel, the police had asked the Accused to stop his car, The Accused then proceeded to stop his car after passing through the tunnel and DW2 then went home after that^{[note: 266]}. DW2 also said that her body did not move when the Accused stopped his car^{[note: 267]}. DW2 also confirmed that she was wearing her seat belt at the time of the incident^{[note: 268]}.

93 DW2 testified that she was unable to recall the way the Accused was driving on the night of the incident as she was touching her phone when she was in the Accused’s car but she did not think that he was speeding on the night of the incident. DW2 also testified that on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being a very safe driver and 10 being a very reckless and dangerous driver, she would estimate the Accused to be driving at scale of 4 to 5^{[note: 269]}.

94 During cross-examination, DW2 testified that:

(a) She had been living in Singapore for about 6 years and she did not have any driving experience in Singapore^{[note: 270]}.

(b) DW2 also said that she had gone to work at 9.30 am that day and she had finished work at about 4 pm on 8 August 2018^{[note: 271]}. DW2 finished her work around 4 pm and went home before going out to meet some friends for dinner at a Korean restaurant at Tanjong Pagar^{[note: 272]} at about 6.30 pm. The dinner had ended about 9 pm and DW2 had reached home when the Accused texted her to invite her to go to Zouk. DW2 could not remember where the Accused had pick her from, but they were on their way to Zouk when the incident happened^{[note: 273]}.

(c) DW2 testified that when the Accused’s car was in the Kampong Java tunnel, she was playing with her phone and she was not looking at the dashboard of the Accused’s car and she did not see what speed the Accused was driving at while he was in the Kampong Java tunnel^{[note: 274]}. However, DW2 said that she had a fear of speeding cars and based on her feeling, she did not feel that the Accused was speeding on the night of the incident^{[note: 275]}.

(d) DW2 testified that when the Accused’s car was in the middle of the Kampong Java tunnel, she remembered seeing a police car following the Accused’s car. The police car was flashing at the Accused’s car. DW2 then asked the Accused if the police car was asking him to stop^{[note: 276]}. However, DW2 could not remember if she had heard any police alarm^{[note: 277]}. DW2 also remembered seeing a police officer on a police motorcycle and the police motorcycle coming to the side of the Accused’s car at one point of time^{[note: 278]}. DW2 also could not remember what was the Accused’s response after she had asked him about the police^{[note: 279]}.

(e) DW2 testified that after she had asked the Accused if the police were telling him to stop his car, the Accused continued to drive forward, and he continued driving through the Kampong Java tunnel^{[note: 280]}. DW2 said the Accused had exited the tunnel and the place that he stopped his car was not far from the exit of the tunnel^{[note: 281]}. However, after watching Exhibit P2, DW2 agreed with the Prosecution that the Accused did not stop his car close to the exit of the tunnel^{[note: 282]}.

(f) DW2 also said that when the Accused stopped his car after the exit of the tunnel, there was nothing remarkable about the way he stopped his car^{[note: 283]}. This was based on her feelings on how the car had stopped^{[note: 284]}.

(g) DW2 also recalled seeing a police officer falling off his motorcycle after the Accused had stopped his car but she was not sure if it was the same police officer that she had seen in the tunnel^{[note: 285]}. DW2 only saw the police officer after she had gotten out of the Accused’s car^{[note: 286]}.

(h) DW2 also said that she did recall seeing the police officer on the motorcycle from the middle of the tunnel till the time she saw him fall after the Accused had stopped his car^{[note: 287]}. However, DW2 could not remember the position of the police motorcycle viz-a-viz the Accused’s car^{[note: 288]}.

Prosecution’s Case^{[note: 289]}

95 The Accused had claimed trial to DAC 9021382-2019 and MAC 900626-2019. DAC 902382-2019 was for an offence under section 63(4) of the Road Traffic Act and MAC 900626-2019 was for an offence under section 338(b) of the Penal Code.

Elements of the offences

Section 63(4) of Road Traffic Act

96 The Prosecution submitted that the elements of an offence under s 63(4) of the Road Traffic Act were set out at [317] of PP v Lee Teng Kiang and ors [2004] SGDC 222:

(a) The accused person was the driver of the vehicle named in the charge;

(b) The accused drove the vehicle named in the charge at the stated time, speed and place in the charge;

(c) The speed was in excess of the speed limit at the place stated in the charge.

Section 338(b) of the Penal Code

97 The Prosecution submitted that the elements of s 338(b) of the Penal Code were as follows:

(a) The accused must have done a negligent act. The standard of negligence in criminal cases was the civil standard of negligence (ie, the accused’s actions should be judged against that of a reasonable and prudent driver on the same type of road and in prevailing traffic conditions);

(b) The aforesaid negligent act must have endangered human life or personal safety;

(c) Grievous hurt must have been caused as a result of the negligent act.

Events leading up to the offences

98 The Accused had gone for a drinking session at Balmoral Plaza. Sometime past midnight, on 9 August 2018, he had arranged to meet DW2, to go to a club named Zouk at Clarke Quay. The Accused and DW2 had known each other for 4 years till date^{[note: 290]}. DW2 agreed. The Accused then picked up DW2 in his white Audi car bearing licence plate number SKN 3003T and headed towards Clarke Quay.

99 The Accused’s intended route to Clarke Quay that night was as follows^{[note: 291]}:

(a) The Accused drove on Central Expressway (“CTE”) towards Ayer Rajah Expressway (“AYE”) through Kampong Java Tunnel;

(b) Along Kampong Java Tunnel, the Accused drove past Bukit Timah Exit 6;

(c) The Accused passed by Cairnhill Circle, Exit 5 within Kampong Java Tunnel;

(d) To get to Clarke Quay, the Accused had intended to exit at Havelock Road Exit 2. However, on the day in question, the Accused was stopped by the police before he reached the Havelock Road Exit 2 and he had exited at Exit 4 which led into Buyong Road.

100 Meanwhile, PW1 was on duty from the night of 8 August 2018 to the early morning of 9 August 2018. PW1 was performing his duty with other officers from the Traffic Police Force, namely PW2, PW3 and PW4.

101 At the material time, PW1 and PW2 were on their respective Traffic Police motorcycles^{[note: 292]}. PW3 and PW4 were travelling in a Traffic Police patrol car bearing registration number QX889A^{[note: 293]}. They were on their way to set up roadblocks^{[note: 294]}.

The speeding charge (DAC 901382-2019) was made out

102 It was undisputed that the Accused was the driver of the white Audi car at the material time, and he did drive the white Audi car at the time and place stated in the charge.

103 The main issue in dispute was the speed at which the Accused was driving along the Kampong Java Tunnel on CTE towards AYE. The Accused had admitted at trial that he was driving at slightly above 100km/h which was above the 80 km/h speed limit for that stretch of road^{[note: 295]}. However, the Accused had claimed that he never drove at 135 km/h in his journey on CTE towards AYE through Kampong Java Tunnel.

A. The Prosecution has led evidence to prove that the accused was travelling at 135 km/h along Kampong Java Tunnel at about 3.20 am.

104 The Prosecution had led evidence from PW1 that the Accused was travelling at 135km/h along Kampong Java Tunnel. PW1’s evidence was corroborated by PW2 and PW3.

105 PW1 had testified at the trial that when he was riding along the CTE, he had noticed the white Audi car as it was travelling faster compared to other vehicles which were travelling along CTE^{[note: 296]}.

106 PW1 then started to trail behind the white Audi car. During the trailing period, PW1 maintained a constant distance between the white Audi car and his Traffic Police motorcycle^{[note: 297]}. PW1 did so, by using the Singapore Police Force logo on his motorcycle’s windshield as a reference point and ensuring that the size of the white Audi car’s rear (as seen through his windshield) remained constant relative to the size of the logo^{[note: 298]}.

107 PW1 trailed behind the white Audi car for about 400 to 500 metres before he eventually locked the white Audi car’s speed^{[note: 299]} at the 3:17:40 am mark of Exhibit P1^{[note: 300]}. PW1 did so by flicking a toggle which froze the police digital speedometer^{[note: 301]}. The Accused’s speed was locked at 135km/h at the point of time when the Accused entered Kampong Java Tunnel^{[note: 302]}. This exceeded the prescribed limit of 80 km/h within Kampong Java Tunnel^{[note: 303]}.

B. The Prosecution witnesses’ testimony should be preferred over the defence witnesses’ testimony.

1. PW1 was internally consistent

108 The Prosecution submitted that PW1 was internally consistent. In examination-in-chief, PW1 had testified that he maintained a constant distance with the white Audi car during the trailing period^{[note: 304]}. When pressed in cross-examination, PW1 maintained that he kept a constant distance with the white Audi car before locking in his speed at 135 km/h. PW1 did not speed up to close the distance between his traffic police motorcycle and the white Audi car.

109 Second, PW1 identified the same point at which he locked the white Audi car’s speed at 135 km/h in both examination-in-chief and cross-examination. During examination-in-chief, PW1 had testified that he locked the accused’s speed at 135km/h at the 3:17:40 mark of Exhibit P1^{[note: 305]}. In cross-examination, PW1 confirmed that he had locked the white Audi car’s speed at 135km/h at the start of Kampong Java Tunnel, at the 3:17:40 mark of Exhibit P1^{[note: 306]}.

2. PW1 was externally consistent.

110 The Prosecution also submitted that PW1’s evidence was also externally consistent, as it was corroborated by PW2’s and PW3’s testimony.

111 PW1’s reading was supported by PW2’s independent speed check. PW2 likewise had spotted the white Audi car, as it was travelling faster than other vehicles along CTE^{[note: 307]}. During examination-in-chief, PW2 testified that he had locked the white Audi car’s speed at 135km/h^{[note: 308]} at the 2.10 mark of Exhibit P2 ^{[note: 309]}, after keeping a constant distance with the white Audi car and matching the white Audi car’s speed^{[note: 310]}. At that point, the white Audi car was about 500 metres from the entrance of Kampong Java Tunnel^{[note: 311]}, near the Cairnhill exit^{[note: 312]}.When pressed during cross-examination, PW2 maintained that he had locked the car’s speed at135km/h at the 2.10 mark of Exhibit P2 ^{[note: 313]}.

112 PW3’s testimony had also corroborated PW1’s evidence. During examination-in-chief, PW3 had stated that he had locked the Accused’s speed at 135km/h within Kampong Java Tunnel at around the 2.06 mark of Exhibit P2^{[note: 314]}. PW3 explained that he was travelling at the same speed as the white Audi car, and the white Audi car was neither pulling away from his patrol car nor slowing down^{[note: 315]}. A speed warning device, which was triggered whenever the speed of the traffic police patrol car exceeded 130 km/h, was also beeping when the white Audi car was in Kampong Java Tunnel, at the 2.06 mark of Exhibit P2^{[note: 316]}. In cross-examination, PW3 pointed to the 2.03 mark of Exhibit P2—which was broadly consistent with his testimony in examination-in-chief^{[note: 317]}. In addition, PW3 maintained in cross-examination that the speed warning device would only be triggered whenever the speed of the traffic police patrol car exceeded 130km/h^{[note: 318]}.

3. The demeanour of the Prosecution witnesses was credible.

113 The Prosecution also submitted that the demeanour of the Prosecution witnesses was honest. Furthermore, there was no reason for the Prosecution witnesses to lie and implicate the Accused.

(a) PW1

114 The Prosecution submitted that PW1 was a candid witness throughout his testimony. This was underscored by the following examples:

(a) When pressed if he knew the speed at which the Accused was travelling at after he had locked in the Accused’s speed at 135km/h at the start of Kampong Java Tunnel, PW1 admitted that he could not tell as his speedometer was frozen^{[note: 319]}.

(b) When asked if there was a computer-generated reading of the locked in speed at 135km/h, PW1 conceded that he was unaware of the existence of such a reading^{[note: 320]}; and

(c) PW1 also acknowledged that he was travelling at a speed above 135km/h after locking the Accused’s speed at 3:17:40 of Exhibit P1^{[note: 321]}.

(b) PW2

115 The Prosecution also submitted that PW2 had also demonstrated himself to be an honest witness:

(a) When asked about his observations about the Accused’s speed after he locked the Accused’s speed at 135 km/h, PW2 admitted that he could not determine the Accused’s speed because he was concentrating on the speed that he had locked in^{[note: 322]}.

(b) Furthermore, PW2 had admitted that he could not recall whether the Accused had signalled when the Accused entered the slip road leading to Buyong Road, although he acknowledged that the footage shows that the Accused had indeed done so^{[note: 323]}.

(c) PW3

116 PW3 was frank in conceding that a radar gun was not used, even though it would have been more accurate^{[note: 324]}.

4. The Prosecution witnesses were experienced Traffic Police officers who had been trained in conducting speed checks.

117 The Prosecution submitted that the Prosecution witnesses were experienced Traffic Police officers, with each officer having at least a decade’s worth of experience in the Traffic Police Force.

118 PW1 had served for 10 years in the Traffic Police^{[note: 325]} and PW1 had been attached to the patrol unit ever since he joined the Traffic Police force and one of his duties entailed conducting high speed chases^{[note: 326]}.

119 PW2 had been in the Traffic Police Force for close to 11 years^{[note: 327]} and PW3 had served in the Traffic Police Force for 10 years^{[note: 328]}.

120 As explained by PW2, traffic police officers would have undergone at least 10 training sessions, where their mentors would have taught them on how to conduct speed trailing^{[note: 329]}. During these exercises, traffic police officers were taught to maintain a constant distance between their motorcycle/patrol car and the target vehicle for a certain length of distance and time, before locking the target vehicle’s speed^{[note: 330]}. The accuracy of this method had been tried and tested, as the traffic police officers would subsequently verify their trailed speed with the actual speed of the target vehicle. There would be an allowance of plus/minus 5 km/h between the trailed speed and the actual speed of the target vehicle^{[note: 331]}.

C. By contrast, the Defence’s claim that the Accused was travelling at a speed of slightly above 100km/h had rested on flimsy testimony and was uncorroborated by objective evidence.

1. The Accused’s testimony is internally inconsistent.

121 At the trial, the Accused had taken the position that he did not commit the speeding offence because he had glanced at his speedometer and saw that he was not travelling at 130 km/h^{[note: 332]}. Furthermore, the Accused had driven at 130km/h at the Autobahn in Germany and he felt that his speed that night did not reach 130km/h^{[note: 333]}.

122 However, the Prosecution submitted that the Accused’s self-serving testimony was fraught with inconsistencies and cannot be relied on because:

(a) The Accused’s testimony flew against the weight of objective evidence, and even his own Defence witness contradicted him;

(b) The Accused had shown himself to be an unreliable witness, whose credibility was impeached in the course of Day 3 of the trial;

(c) The Defence’s theory that the Accused was not travelling at 135km/h based on average speed calculations was unfounded.

123 The Prosecution submitted that the Accused’s testimony in court contradicted his police statement Exhibit P11A in various aspects:

(a) The Accused had testified that he first saw the police blinkers and heard the police sirens somewhere at the start of Kampong Java tunnel^{[note: 334]}. Conversely, in his police statement, the Accused had stated that he recalled that he first heard and saw police blinkers and sirens towards the end of Kampong Java tunnel^{[note: 335]}. When confronted with this contradiction, the Accused asserted that he told the statement recorder PW5 that he had heard and seen the police blinkers and sirens at the start of the tunnel^{[note: 336]}.

(b) The Accused testified in court that he knew that the police was telling him to stop at the start of the tunnel and he was already trying to stop. This contradicted his police statement, where it stated that he saw the traffic police officer telling him to stop towards the end of the tunnel^{[note: 337]}.

(c) The Accused had testified in court that he had glanced at his speedometer before he entered the Kampong Java Tunnel and his speed was slightly above 100km/h^{[note: 338]}. This was again at odds with his police statement, where he told the statement recorder that he did not know what speed he was driving at the material time^{[note: 339]}.

124 When confronted with the contradictions between his police statement and his in-court testimony, the Accused made multiple accusations against PW5.

125 First, the Accused claimed that he had allegedly told PW5 that he saw the sirens at the start of the tunnel, but the statement was recorded erroneously. The Prosecution submitted that the Accused’s claim was incredible for the following reasons:

(a) First, the Accused had conceded that he had looked through the police statement before signing it.

(b) Second, the Accused was no babe in the woods. Having worked in a bank, he would have understood the importance of ensuring the accuracy of an important document before signing it. It was implausible that the Accused would have signed the police statement, without verifying the veracity of its contents, particularly when the prospects of facing charges were looming over him.

(c) Third, PW5 testified that he did not record the accused’s statement inaccurately. There was no reason for PW5 to have altered the contents of the Accused’s account to him^{[note: 340]}.

126 Second, in an attempt to explain away his statement to PW5 that he did not know what speed he was travelling at, the Accused had offered two different accounts:

(a) The Accused first explained that PW5 had purportedly told him that he drove at 135km/h at the place of the incident^{[note: 341]}. He therefore told PW5 that he did not know what speed he was driving at that time.

(b) The Accused later claimed that SI Jackson had told him that he drove at 135km/h at the end of the tunnel^{[note: 342]}. In response, he told PW5 that he did not know what speed he was driving at that time.

(c) When pressed to clarify PW5’s exact words, the Accused asserted that PW5 told him that he was travelling at 135km/h at the place where PW1 fell down^{[note: 343]}.

127 The Prosecution submitted that the Accused’s claims should be disbelieved for the following reasons:

(a) First, the Accused was internally inconsistent. He had given varying accounts of what PW5 had allegedly told him;

(b) Second, the alleged exchange between PW5 and the Accused was not recorded in the police statement (marked as Exhibit P11A). PW5’s question to the Accused had made no reference to the location at which the traffic police officers clocked the accused’s speed at 135km/h^{[note: 344]}. Question 2 of P11A simply stated “Your speed captured by police was at 135kmph in excess of 80 kmph road speed. What do you have to say?” In addition, PW5 confirmed in examination-in-chief that he would have recorded his questions verbatim in the police statement. Had he told the Accused that he was travelling at 135km/h at a particular location, it would have been captured in the statement.

2. The Accused was proven to be an unreliable witness.

128 The Prosecution also submitted that the Accused was proven to be an unreliable witness, and he had been shown to tailor his evidence. Crucially, the Accused belatedly alleged that he had checked his speedometer and the speed was reflected at 100km/h. He had not made any mention of it in his statements to the police, even though it would have been a material and relevant fact for the speeding charge. Instead, he raised this for the first time in the course of court proceedings, despite having given at least two long statements to the police. The Prosecution submitted that this was a mere afterthought by the Accused.

129 The Accused’s credibility was also impeached in the course of trial over the inconsistencies between his court testimony and police statement^{[note: 345]}.

3. The Accused’s testimony was not corroborated by other objective evidence.

130 In support of his claim that his speed was slightly above 100km/h, the Accused had claimed that he had relied on his untested and imprecise “feelings”^{[note: 346]}. His subjective feelings about his speed at the material time were not reliable, given that he was in a depressed mood due to his relationship issues^{[note: 347]} and it could have clouded his judgment at the material time.

131 Furthermore, the Accused’s belated claim that he had checked his speedometer before entering Kampong Java Tunnel was also unsubstantiated and uncorroborated by other witnesses.

4. The Defence’s witness, DW2, did not assist the Defence’s case in any way.

132 The Prosecution submitted that DW2 could only rely on her own perceptions of the Accused’s speed and pointed to nothing more. The accuracy of her evidence was suspect, given that:

(a) DW2 had no driving experience in Singapore^{[note: 348]};

(b) Her perception of the events that day would have been hampered by her fatigue after a long day. DW2 had admitted that she had been out for the whole day from 9.30 am on 8 August 2018 till 9 August 2018 at about 2 am when the Accused picked her up^{[note: 349]}; and

(c) DW2 was not paying attention whilst she was in the Accused’s car. DW2 was using her mobile phone and she conceded that she did not look at the dashboard^{[note: 350]}. The Prosecution submitted that DW2 was therefore unaware of the actual speed of the Accused’s car.

133 Further, DW2 has known the Accused for 4 years^{[note: 351]}. she would have reason to downplay the Accused’s culpability.

5. The Defence’s theory that the Accused was travelling at a speed of slightly above 100km/h based on average speed calculations was unfounded.

134 The Prosecution noted that the Defence had attempted to lend legitimacy to the Accused’s claim that he was travelling at a speed of slightly above 100km/h by calculating the white Audi car’s average speed. By the Defence’s calculations, the Accused’s average speed was 90km/h to 100km/h after the Accused had braked his white Audi car for the first time in the tunnel^{[note: 352]} at around the 2.03 to the 2.06 mark of Exhibit P2^{[note: 353]}.

135 The Prosecution noted that the Accused had conceded in the course of cross-examination that even if his average speed were hypothetically derived, his actual speed could have been faster or slower at any point of time^{[note: 354]}. Hence, even if the average speed of the white Audi car were lower than 135km/h, it did not prove that the white Audi car was not travelling at 135km/h at any one point^{[note: 355]}.

The S 338 (b) Penal Code charge (MAC 900626-2019) was made out

136 The Accused was not disputing that grievous hurt was caused as a result of PW1’s fall, nor was he disputing the extent of PW1’s injuries.

137 PW1 was diagnosed with a distal radius fracture on his left wrist at Tan Tock Seng Hospital^{[note: 356]}, and he was issued outpatient sick leave for 7 days^{[note: 357]} and 60 days of hospitalisation leave^{[note: 358]}. Despite having undergone surgery, PW1 was no longer able to carry heavy objects or pull heavy objects^{[note: 359]}. Further, he was unable to fully extend his left wrist^{[note: 360]}. In addition, PW1 was unable to ride his traffic police motorcycle for more than 30 minutes due to pain, weakness, and tremors in his left hand. His maximum pain score whenever he rode his motorcycle for more than 30 minutes was 7 out of 10^{[note: 361]}.

138 The main issues in dispute in relation to MAC 900626-2019 were:

(a) First, whether the Accused had applied hard braking in the middle of the slip road leading to Buyong Road;

(b) Second, whether the Accused had committed a negligent act by applying hard brakes in the middle of a slip road exiting an expressway, despite knowing that PW1 was close behind his white Audi car.

A. PW1 had testified that the Accused had applied hard braking in the middle of the slip road leading to Buyong Road, despite the fact that PW1 was close behind the Accused’s white Audi car.

139 In examination-in-chief, PW1 had testified that he continued to tail the white Audi car through Kampong Java tunnel into the slip road leading to Buyong Road. The Accused had suddenly applied his brakes and had braked abruptly in the middle of the slip road leading to Buyong Road^{[note: 362]}. PW1 was trailing 1-2 car lengths behind the white Audi car at the material time^{[note: 363]}, and he had to apply hard brakes in response to the Accused’s sudden braking^{[note: 364]}. As a result, PW1 fell off his motorcycle^{[note: 365]}.

140 In cross-examination, PW1 maintained that the Accused had abruptly applied his brakes at the 2.52 mark of Exhibit P2. PW1 therefore had to apply hard brakes in response, and he fell off his motorcycle as a consequence^{[note: 366]}. PW1’s brakes and motorcycle were also not malfunctioning to his knowledge^{[note: 367]}.

1. PW1’s testimony was corroborated by objective evidence and other witnesses.

141 The Prosecution submitted that PW1’s account was corroborated by objective evidence. As seen in Exhibit P2 at the 2.52 mark, traffic flow was light. At around the 2.52 mark of Exhibit P2, the white Audi car could be seen applying its brakes abruptly in the middle of the slip road leading to Buyong Road. The footage showed that by this point, PW1 had insufficient time and distance to avoid crashing into the rear of the accused’s Car. In order to avoid this, PW1 applied emergency brakes and could be seen falling off his motorcycle thereafter at around the 2.54 mark.

142 PW1’s account was corroborated by PW2 and PW3’s accounts:

(a) PW2 had testified that once the Accused’s white Audi car entered the slip road leading to Buyong Road, he observed that the Accused’s white Audi car had suddenly accelerated for a split second and before he jammed his brakes^{[note: 368]}.

(b) PW3 had testified that he noticed the Accused braking hard and releasing his brakes^{[note: 369]}. PW3’s basis was that he had to similarly braked hard at the same time as the Accused, as he was closing in on the Accused^{[note: 370]}. PW3 had identified the 2.48 mark of Exhibit P2 as the point at which he had started braking ^{[note: 371]}and the 2.54 second mark as the point at which the patrol car had crossed the chevron marking^{[note: 372]}.

143 In addition, the Accused had conceded that he knew that PW1 was riding close to his car rear this entire period of time^{[note: 373]}. Despite this, he had braked abruptly in the middle of the slip road leading to Buyong Road, without paying any heed to the safety of the road users around him, including PW1.

B. The Accused’s claim that he did not abruptly apply his brakes was unsubstantiated.

144 The Accused had maintained that he did not abruptly apply his brakes. Instead, he had claimed that after PW1 had gone beside him and gestured for him to stop, he signalled to the left with the intention of stopping^{[note: 374]}. The Accused also claimed that he could not find it safe to stop within the tunnel^{[note: 375]}. The Accused then slowed down after exiting Kampong Java tunnel^{[note: 376]}. He claimed that he similarly could not find it safe to stop his car at a road shoulder, after exiting Kampong Java Tunnel, as he felt that the road shoulder was too narrow for his white Audi car^{[note: 377]}. The Accused asserted that he had tapped the car’s brakes to lower the speed even further after exiting Kampong Java Tunnel before coming to an eventual stop^{[note: 378]}. The Accused had admitted that throughout the journey, he knew that PW1 was behind his car^{[note: 379]}.

145 The Accused had sought to blame PW1 for the accident, claiming that the accident was a result of PW1’s lack of control and care of his motorcycle that was expected of a reasonable rider^{[note: 380]}.

1. The Accused’s claim that he had intended to stop was contradicted by objective evidence.

146 The Prosecution submitted that even if the court were to accept the Accused’s account (i.e. that he only realised that the police was instructing him to stop when PW1 rode beside him), it was obvious from the footage that he had shown no signs of stopping from the point that PW1 rode beside him to the time the Accused actually stopped at the slip road.

147 The Prosecution submitted that the Accused must have noticed the police much earlier, near the start of Kampong Java Tunnel. The Accused had testified that he first saw the police blinkers and heard the police sirens somewhere at the start of Kampong Java Tunnel^{[note: 381]}. He had also admitted that he knew that the police were telling him to stop at the start of the tunnel^{[note: 382]}. Yet, the Accused proceeded to drive through Kampong Java Tunnel, exit the tunnel, travel along CTE before eventually braking abruptly at the slip road leading to Buyong Road.

148 The Prosecution also submitted that the Accused’s belated assertion that he had the intention to stop even within Kampong Java Tunnel but that he found it unsafe to do so should be given short shrift. Had the Accused truly been concerned about safety, he would not have stopped his white Audi car in the manner that he did. The footage showed that the Accused had abruptly braked right in the middle of the slip road leading to Buyong Road, despite the absence of any vehicles or obstructions ahead. The Accused had also conceded that the slip road leading to Buyong Road was likewise a narrow stretch of road^{[note: 383]}, and he was in a similar or even worse predicament than he had been in just after exiting Kampong Java Tunnel and within Kampong Java Tunnel^{[note: 384]}.

149 The Accused’s claims that he had the intention to stop since the start of Kampong Java tunnel were therefore completely unfounded and contradicted by the objective evidence.

2. The Defence’s own witness, DW2, was unreliable and unhelpful to the Defence’s case.

150 The Prosecution submitted that DW2 had agreed with the Prosecution that her testimony that the Accused had braked normally was not based on any objective observations or evidence. She had also conceded that this was purely based on her feelings^{[note: 385]}.

151 Further, the Prosecution was of the view that DW2 was an unreliable witness. DW2’s memory of events had been proven to be inaccurate by the footage. She had admitted that she could remember the details of the incident^{[note: 386]}. DW2 had also testified in court that the Accused had stopped soon after he exited the tunnel^{[note: 387]}. However, this is contradicted by the footage, which showed that the Accused had only stopped at the slip road leading to Buyong Road.

152 Finally, the Prosecution submitted that DW2 was an interested witness. She had known the Accused for 4 years. She had further been shown to be an evasive witness in court. For example, she refused to accept the reasonable proposition that her seatbelt could have restrained her from moving forward, when the Accused’s car braked.

C. The Accused’s act of hard braking in the middle of the slip road leading to Buyong Road constituted a negligent act.

153 The Prosecution submitted that the Accused’s actions were to be judged against that of a reasonable and prudent driver on the same type of road and in prevailing traffic conditions. As evident from the video, there were no vehicles or obstruction that occasioned the Accused’s sudden braking in the middle of a slip road leading to Buyong Road. A reasonable and prudent driver would not done the following acts that the Accused did:

(a) Hard braking suddenly without any warning;

(b) Braking in the middle of a slip road exiting an expressway where vehicles were fast moving;

(c) Braking despite knowing that PW1 was riding close behind;

(d) Causing PW1 to have no choice but to also apply hard braking to avoid the white Audi car; and

(e) Causing PW1 to thereby skid and fall.

Conclusion

154 In summary, the Prosecution submitted that the evidence adduced before the Court had proved beyond reasonable doubt that:

(a) The Accused had travelled at a speed of 135km/h along the Kampong Java Tunnel in the CTE towards AYE at around 3.20 am; and

(b) The Accused had applied hard brakes in the slip road leading to Buyong Road and this constituted a negligent act.

155 By contrast, the Accused’s self-serving claim that he was travelling at a speed slightly above 100km/h along Kampong Java Tunnel was a mere afterthought that was unsubstantiated by objective evidence. The Accused’s defence witness DW2 was also proven to be unhelpful and there were suspicions of her being a partisan witness.

156 In light of the above, the Prosecution urged me to find the Accused guilty of the two charges and to convict him accordingly.

Defence Case^{[note: 388]}

Summary of the Defence

157 The Accused was relying on the Defence that the requisite ingredients of the charges had not been made out against him. The Accused maintained that he had not been travelling at a speed of 135 km/h along the Kampong Java Tunnel and had not done any rash and/or negligent act that had caused PW1 to suffer grievous hurt.

Submissions relating to PW1’s evidence

158 The Defence submitted that PW1’s evidence was neither convincing nor reliable as it was riddled with logical fallacies, inconsistencies, and indications of biasness towards the Prosecution’s case.

No Objective Evidence

159 The Defence noted that PW1 had stated that he had locked in the speed of the Accused’s car whilst he was speeding. PW1 had trailed the Accused’s car for a distance before using a toggle from his traffic motorbike to lock the police digital speedometer.

160 The Defence was of the view that the word “lock” should indicate a securing or recording of sorts. This was to prevent evidence from being tampered or lost. In any event it would be safe to say that when such a term was used, one would expect some record of the speedometer.

161 The Defence was of the view that despite PW1 stating that he had “Locked” the speed of the Accused’s vehicle, PW1 had not produced any objective evidence whatsoever to evince this.

162 The Defence submitted that the burden of proof was with the Prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that PW1 had testified with such terminology suggesting an objective, indisputable record of the Accused’s speed and yet not producing any objective evidence of such “Locking in” in itself had casted doubt on the credibility of PW1 and the Prosecution’s case as a whole.

163 Indeed, if the speedometer had been frozen as PW1 had claimed, all that it would take to evince this would be to take a photograph of the speedometer to reflect the Accused’s car’s alleged speed. That was not done.

164 The Defence also submitted that the most crucial video footage to establish the s 338(b) was not available. Exhibit P1 had conveniently frozen at the point just before the accident between PW1 and the Accused’s car occurred. This again demonstrated the position where crucial objective evidence was available to the Prosecution and it had failed to be produced at trial.

165 The Defence was noted that the Prosecution had also not produced the “black box” device which was the recording device in PW1’s motorcycle, The Defence submitted that all these failures by the Prosecution had cast a heavy doubt on the Prosecution’s case.

166 The Defence also pointed out that the Prosecution had also not tendered the video recording from PW2’ motorcycle. The video footage from PW2’s motorcycle was a crucial piece of evidence as PW2’s motorcycle was right behind PW1’s motorcycle and it would have fully captured the accident. The footage from PW2’s motorcycle would have shown if the Accused had indeed applied hard brakes and if PW1 was negligent in the riding of his motorcycle.

167 The Defence submitted that the collective failure to adduce such material evidence was detrimental to the Prosecution’s case.

Method of Trailing

168 PW1 had testified that the Accused was travelling at 135 km/h at the start, inside the tunnel.

169 PW1 had also given evidence that in order to trail the Accused, he would try to keep a constant distance and speed before locking in the speed of the Accused’s car. In order to do that, PW1 would need to keep the violator within the windshield. PW1 had also testified that he had trailed the Accused’s car for 400 to 500 metres before locking in the Accused ‘s speed at time stamp 3:17:48 of Exhibit P1.

170 At cross-examination PW1 was asked in reference to Exhibit P1, to state where he had begun to trail the Accused. PW1 had said that it was about 3:17:25. Defence Counsel then put a question, that from the observations of Exhibit P1, PW1 had not been maintaining a distance as he was closing the distance to the Accused’s car. PW1 could not disagree with certainty as he had stated that he was trying to maintain a distance with the rear of the Accused’s car. PW1 also said that he was maintaining a constant speed.

171 The Defence submitted that from the objective observation in Exhibit P1, it was clear that PW1 was accelerating to reach the Accused’s car and PW1 was travelling at a very fast speed as his motorcycle could be seen overtaking other cars. It was quite clear from Exhibit P1 that PW1 had caught up with the Accused’s car in just a few seconds.

172 The Defence submitted that in order for PW1 to catch up with the Accused’s car, PW1 would have to accelerate and travel at a speed faster than the Accused’s car. So PW1 must have been travelling at a faster speed than the Accused’s car in order to catch up with the Accused’s car.

173 The Defence submitted this fact coupled with the fact that PW1 could not be sure if his motorcycle was closing the distance with the Accused’s car during the alleged time of when he started to trail the Accused had casted significant doubt on the accuracy of his trailing method and his finding that the Accused was speeding at 135km/h.

174 The Defence submitted that for PW1’s evidence to make any sense, it would have to mean that before PW1 had accelerated to catch up with the Accused’s car, he was already travelling at 135km/h and thereafter accelerated to a speed significantly beyond that to catch up with the Accused.

175 The Defence submitted that before PW1 had accelerated to catch up with the Accused’s car, it could be seen from Exhibit P1 that PW1 was travelling at a speed matching the other vehicles around him. The Defence submitted that that would mean that all the vehicles around PW1 were travelling at approximately 135km/h which was a preposterous position.

176 The Defence further submitted that their position was further supported as PW1 had agreed that he had closed the distance between himself and the Accused and he had accelerated to catch up with the Accused and he had also observed that the Accused had not slowed down throughout this time.

177 The Defence also submitted that PW1’s evidence on employing the use of the windshield to assist in his trailing was also proven to be ineffective at cross examination as PW1 had confirmed that what he said earlier about keeping the violator in the windshield pertained only to keeping the violator in his field of vision and had nothing to do with speeding concerns. The Defence also pointed out that during re-examination, PW1 had attempted to rectify this by stating there was a SPF logo on his windscreen which he tried to use as reference to be maintaining a constant speed. The Defence submitted that the Prosecution had not adduced anything to show the existence of this logo. The Defence submitted that this was purely a disingenuous afterthought as in cross examination PW1 had already agreed that the windscreen had nothing to do with speeding concerns and was used only to ensure the violator’s vehicle remains in his field of vision.

Sequence of events in the tunnel

178 PW1 had testified that he had signalled using his hand and horned at the Accused twice before he managed to get eye contact with the Accused. PW1 also said that after the Accused had made eye contact with PW1, he proceeded to look in front and continued driving ahead. There was no change in the Accused’s speed. The Defence submitted that this was highly unlikely as the Accused had thereafter signalled left, indicating that he did understand PW1’s gestures. The Defence submitted that the Accused had then signalled left and he was travelling at 90-100km/h.

179 PW1 had testified that the Accused’s car was hogging the dotted lines in between the centre and extreme left 3-lanes road. The Accused’s car then swerved into the exit whilst maintaining its speed. PW1 followed the car around 1 to 2 car lengths away. PW1 also testified that he noticed that the Accused’s car did not show any intention to stop at the road shoulder and he decided to pick up speed to follow the Accused.

180 The Defence submitted that that was an erroneous judgment call on the part of PW1 and there was no need for PW1 to pick up speed because the Accused had already maintained his signal to the left for at least 15 seconds before, giving a clear message of exiting the highway where it would be much harder for any vehicle to speed. It was also clear from Exhibits P1 to P3 and from PW1’s testimony that the Accused had not accelerated near the exit.

181 The Defence also submitted that the accident which had happened at the Buyong slip road exit had occurred because PW1 was trying to pick up speed to close the distance between himself and the Accused to 1 to 2 car lengths and PW1 was travelling too close to the Accused.

182 The Defence also pointed out that PW2 had testified that he had noticed that the Accused’s car had stopped about 5 seconds after he had applied his brakes and the car had travelled about 4 car lengths. The Defence submitted that as the Accused was travelling about 80 to 100 km/h at the slip road exit, basing on the safe distance rule that one must allow a safety distance of 1 car length for every 15 km/h, PW1 should have stayed at a distance of at least 6 car lengths behind the Accused’s car and it was due to PW1’s own misjudgement that he had decided to accelerate and to close the distance to a 1 to 2 car length that the accident had occurred.

183 The Defence also submitted that PW1’s misjudgement was also unjustifiable in light of the following:

(a) They had not been close to a traffic light where the Accused’s vehicle in pursuit could race past and leave PW1stuck by a red light.

(b) The Prosecution had not adduced any authority which would allow PW1 to bypass high code safety procedures.

(c) The Accused had not accelerated his car.

(d) The Accused had already maintained his signal left on for over 15 seconds.

(e) The Accused was exiting the highway.

(f) The Accused was not travelling at an excessive speed to indicate blatant disregard of the law, he was travelling, on PW1’s evidence, at 90-100 km/h, not 135 km/h.

184 The Defence submitted that above clearly showed that PW1 had made an unjustifiable error in judgment which had put him in a dangerous position in being unable to respond to the Accused’s car braking. The Defence was of the view that it was solely from PW1’s negligent/dangerous riding of his motorcycle that had led to the accident and the Accused should not be made to bear any culpability in PW1’s resulting injuries from the accident.

Conclusion of PW1’s evidence

185 The Defence submitted that PW1’s evidence was riddled with blatant contradictions, logical fallacies and possible bias inclinations towards the Prosecution’s case. PW1’s observations and method employed in trailing the Accused’s car were clearly unreliable and there was no evidence to prove that the Accused was travelling at a speed of 135 km/h.

186 The Defence submitted that what had actually happened was as follows:

(a) PW1 had travelled at a speed of 135km/h to catch up with the Accused’s vehicle over a short span of time;

(b) The Accused was not travelling at the speed of 135 km/h;

(c) PW1 had made an error in judgment which had put him in a dangerous position in being unable to respond to the Accused’s car braking;

(d) It was solely due to PW1’s negligent/dangerous driving of his motorcycle that had led to his accident and the Accused should not be responsible for PW1’s resulting injuries from the accident.

Submissions relating to PW2’s evidence

Sequence of events

187 PW2 had testified that before entering the Kampong Java tunnel, he was trailing the Accused’s car and he had checked his speed and his digital speedometer showed 125 km/h. PW2 also testified that he had locked the Accused’s speed at 135km/h around Cairnhill exit when he was about a 100m distance away from Cairnhill exit no. 5 and a distance away from the Accused’s car.

188 On the issue of PW2 locking the Accused’s speed, the Defence had basically repeated their position as per PW1 and they were of the view that there was no evidence to support PW2’s testimony.

189 Whilst approaching the slip road at the Buyong exit, PW2 had observed the Accused’s car to have signalled left and had maintained a constant speed. The Defence submitted that PW2 had given inconsistent evidence because:

(a) He had testified that before the Accused’s car had come to a stop, the Accused’s car was seen to have accelerated.

(b) PW2 then went on to contradict himself again during cross-examination when he testified that after the Accused had applied his brakes in the tunnel, he continued driving at a constant speed which was below 135 km/h.24.

(c) PW2 also testified that at the slip road of Buyong exit, PW2 thought that the Accused had wanted to pick up speed and when he wanted to pick up speed, the Accused’s brakes suddenly came on.

(d) PW2 then changed his position again by saying that the Accused’s car did proceed to pick up speed but he went on to apply his e-brake in a split second later.

190 The Defence submitted that PW2’s evidence was not supported by any objective evidence and it undermined his credibility as a witness:

(a) First, Exhibit P2 had captured the Accused’s vehicle and the PW1’s motorcycle behind it when the Accused applied his brakes at the Buyong exit and it was clear from Exhibit P2 that the Accused did not accelerate.

(b) Second, if the Accused had accelerated and braked in a split second, PW1 would not have the time to react to the acceleration to come to the conclusion that the Accused was trying to evade arrest and then be caught by surprise at the Accused’s sudden application of the brake and subsequently lose control of his motorcycle.

191 On this point, the Defence submitted that what PW2 had actually observed was that the Accused did not step on his accelerator at the slip road. The Defence was of the view that PW2 had disingenuously added this point in his Evidence in Chief to bolster the Prosecution’s case.

192 The Defence submitted that there was nothing in any of the video footages which had suggested that the Accused had wanted to evade arrest. On the contrary, the Accused had signalled left and he had left his signal on for over 15 seconds. The Accused had also taken the left most lane and did not press his accelerator at the slip road. The Defence submitted that all these clearly showed that the Accused had an intention to pull over.

193 PW2 had also testified that the Accused had applied emergency brakes to his car at the slip road. The Defence submitted that the Accused could not have applied e-brakes. Applying e-brakes would have either caused the Accused’s car to come to an abrupt stop or at the very least caused the Accused’s car to jerk and skid. Neither of the above were observed in the video footages. The Defence noted that PW1 had testified that the Accused had applied hard braking. The Defence was of the view that hard braking was possible but improbable. PW2 on the other hand had said that the Accused had applied emergency braking. The Defence was of the view that this was impossible.

194 The Defence also noted that PW1 had skidded and fallen off his motorcycle. However, PW2 had managed to maintain control of his motorcycle and he had managed to manoeuvre past PW1. PW2 was 2-3 car lengths away from the Accused’s car when the Accused had applied e-braking. PW2 had also testified that he was consistently about 2 to 3 cars length behind PW1 throughout of the Accused’s car and that PW1 was about slightly more than 1 car length behind the Accused’s car when the Accused applied e-braking to the car. The Defence submitted that it was clear from PW2’s testimony that PW1 was maintaining a shorter and even more dangerous distance as compared to PW2.

Failure to adduce objective evidence

195 The Defence submitted that PW2 had failed to provide any reasons as to why the video footage from his motorcycle could not be produced or surrendered. The Defence was also of the view that this had detrimentally affects the Prosecution’s case.

Trailing Exercise

196 The Defence noted that PW2 had testified at the start of his trial that he was travelling at 110km/h and he had gradually picked up his speed. PW2’s speed was quite consistent with PW1 as he was always 2-3 car lengths behind PW1. PW2’s speed had climbed to 125km/h at 2:02 of Exhibit P1 and he hit 135 km/h when the Accused car applied his brakes along the CTE. PW2 was about 100m distance away from the Accused’s vehicle when the Accused applied the brakes to his car at the alleged speed of 135km/h.

197 The Defence submitted that based on PW2’s evidence, it was clear that the method employed by the police in trailing the Accused’s car was gravely unreliable. The Defence echoed the same points which they had raised in relation to PW1’s conduct during his trailing exercise on how he would need to accelerate his motorcycle in order to catch up with the Accused’s car, meaning that his speed must be faster than the Accused’s speed.

198 The Defence submitted that it would mean that before PW2 started accelerating to catch up with the Accused’s car, he would have been travelling at 135km/h and he would need to accelerate to a speed significantly beyond 135 km/h to catch up with the Accused, before slowing down to 135km/h and to maintain a constant distance with the Accused over a period of time in order to clock the Accused’s speed at 135 km/h.

199 The Defence submitted that this was an impossible situation for PW2 as he had stated that he had picked up his speed starting at 110km/h. Furthermore, PW2 was only about 100 m away from the Accused’s vehicle and his ability to carry carried out a trailing exercise was highly impossible.

200 The Defence was of the view that the Prosecution could have easily clarified this doubt by producing PW2’s motorcycle footage. But they had failed to produce the footage. As such, similar to PW1’s evidence, PW2’s evidence was riddled with blatant contradictions, logical fallacies and possible bias inclinations towards the Prosecution’s case and no weight should be afforded to PW2’s testimony.

Submissions relating to PW3’s evidence

201 The Defence pointed out that PW3’s patrol car was equipped with a radar gun that was not in use when they were pursuing the Accused’s car. The radar gun could be used to detect the speed of an offender when the police patrol car is stationary or moving. PW3 also confirmed that the radar gun had not been switched on at that time of the incident. PW3 had also testified that it was impossible to activate the radar gun during the pursuit as the officers would need activate the setting on the radar gun and it was impossible to do the set up work whilst they were pursuing the Accused’s car at 125km/h.

202 PW3 had also given evidence that there was a speed warning device in the patrol car which would beep if the patrol car’s speed exceeded 130km/h and the speed warning device had sounded during their pursuit of the Accused’s car. The Defence submitted that that was an observation on the part of PW3. He did not get the information from an operating guide or from any instructor.

203 PW3 had also testified that the speed of the patrol car had reached 135 km/h when he was pursuing the Accused’s vehicle. PW3 further testified that he had tried to look at the driver to get his attention when he drove side by side the Accused’s car. PW3 also sounded the airhorn at the Accused. The airhorn was switched on with a rumbler, which was a low tone vibration accompanying the normal siren. PW3 also testified that one would be able to feel the vibrations even if he was playing his car stereo loudly.

204 PW3 had stated that from Exhibit P3, the Accused’s car looked like it was accelerating when it had approached the slip road at Buyong exit. The Defence submitted that this contradicted PW1 and PW2’s evidence where PW1 had stated that the speed was maintained and PW2 had stated that the acceleration was for a split-second followed by the application of an e-brake.

205 PW3 had estimated the Accused to be travelling at about 90-100km/h at the slip road. He was unable to ascertain the exact sequence of how the Accused’s vehicle had closed the distance to his car from behind.

206 The Defence submitted that the only reason as to why the distance had closed was because the patrol car had applied its brakes close to the slip road at Buyong exit. It should not be construed that the Accused’s car had actually been speeding up.

207 PW3 had also stated that there was no difference between an emergency brake or a hard brake. Yet he agreed with Defence Counsel that if such a brake was applied to a vehicle, usually the vehicle would come to a complete halt. PW3 further agreed that in the Accused’s case, the vehicle did not come to a complete halt immediately.

208 The Defence submitted that from the above, one could garner that was likely that the Accused had not applied a hard or emergency brake and PW3 had been internally inconsistent by stating that the Accused had actually applied a hard brake.

Conclusion of PW3’s evidence

209 The Defence submitted that PW3 had highlighted another way where the Accused’s speed could have been captured in an unbiased and objective manner. There was a radar gun which had been mounted on the patrol car and it was operational at the time of the pursuit. The Defence was of the view that it was unbelievable that a traffic police patrol car which was outfitted with such technology meant specifically to capture speeding vehicles could not be switched on during a high-speed chase. The Prosecution had not adduced any evidence to show that the radar gun had malfunctioned or could not be switched on the material time of the pursuit. PW3 had also not offered any clear explanation as to why the radar gun could not be switched on, leaving it as being “impossible” to do so.

210 The Defence submitted that the Prosecution’s failure to produce objective evidence which was seemingly available had become a pattern of negligence permeating throughout the Prosecution’s case that when collectively considered casted deep doubt on their case. PW3 was also not credible as he had been inconsistent in his observations on whether the Accused had applied a hard/emergency brake.

Submissions relating to PW4’s evidence

211 The Defence noted that amongst all the traffic police officers who were present during the pursuit, PW4 was the most senior officer with 17 years of experience. PW4 was also the highest-ranking officer present.

212 PW4 had communicated to PW1 and PW2 to look out for a “possible” traffic offence when he saw the Accused’s car on the road. The Defence submitted that this suggested that the Accused’s car could not have been travelling at an excessively high speed such as 135km/h as PW4 would have then been certain that an offence had already been committed. It was likely that the Accused had been travelling at a speed close to or above the speed limit

213 PW4 had also stated that PW3 had activated normal siren and lights whilst in the tunnel to get the Accused’s attention. When asked about his observations on the speed of the Accused’s car before entering the tunnel and applying the brake, PW4 replied candidly that he could not do so as he did not have sight of the speedometer. PW4 had also stated that the Accused’s speed was faster than normal motorists and he had maintained this speed until he applied his brake in the Kampong Java tunnel. PW4 could not recall if the Accused’s car had sped up or slowed down thereafter. PW4 had also said that there was no standard protocol as to what high beaming another vehicle entailed; but it was done to alert the attention of the driver. When put by the Defence that the Accused’s car had not been driving at 135km/h, PW4 had answered frankly that he could not be sure as he did not have sight of the speedometer.

Conclusion of PW4’s evidence

214 The Defence had submitted that PW4 was the most senior and highest ranking official amongst the police officer’s present during the pursuit. Unlike PW1, PW2 and PW3, PW4 had not demonstrated a single inconsistency in his evidence. He did not change his position or come up with afterthoughts. If PW4 was unsure about a particular position, he would have clearly stated so.

215 The Defence submitted that PW4 was a reliable witness and from his testimony, it could be deduced that it was unlikely that the Accused’s car was travelling at an excessive speed otherwise PW4’s directions to PW1 and PW2 would have been to arrest the Accused for a speeding offence.

Submissions relating to PW5’s evidence

216 The Defence had pointed out that Exhibit P6 which was introduced via PW5 had showed that the Accused had travelled a distance of 701 m in 21 seconds. This had worked out to an average speed of 120km/h.

217 The Defence also noted that PW5 did not apply for the video footage of PW2’s motorcycle. Given that PW1’s camera had frozen before the accident, the Defence submitted that this had demonstrated negligent conduct in the way PW5 had conducted his investigation. just to establish a simple position on the current existence of the video footage. The Defence submitted that it was the Prosecution’s burden to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and to secure all necessary evidence. The Defence submitted that the video recording from PW2’s motorcycle was a crucial piece of evidence and failure to produce the video recording from PW2’s motorcycle had created a doubt in the Prosecution’s case.

218 The Defence also highlighted that PW5 had agreed with the Defence after viewing Exhibit D1 together with all the video footages that the Accused’s car had travelled the distance of 1.23 km over 52 seconds from the time he entered the tunnel till the point of the accident, which meant that the Accused’s average speed was 85 km/h from the tunnel till the time he braked and stopped his car.

Re-Examination Findings

219 At further EIC, PW5 had also testified that the Accused was sleeping when PW5 visited the Accused’s residence to take his statement (Exhibit P11A).

220 PW5 had testified that the Accused’s demeanour was normal in that he was not intoxicated to the extent where he was falling asleep or was aggressive. PW5 had clarified during the re-examination that the Accused was not observed to be intoxicated at all.

221 The Defence noted that there were several typographical errors made by PW5 in Exhibit P11B. While PW5 had confirmed that both Exhibits P11A and P11B were not long and complicated statements, PW5 was unable to explain why he had made so many typographical errors in Exhibit P11B.

222 PW5 had also testified that he was briefed that the Accused had travelled at the speed of 135km/h when he was in the tunnel. But he was unable to explain why Exhibits D2 and D3 which was drafted by PW6 had indicated that the Accused was travelling at 135 km/h at the Buyong exit.

Submissions relating to PW6’s evidence

223 PW6 was called by the Prosecution to explain why Exhibits D2 and D3 had been drafted to reflect the Accused’s speed to be 135km/h at the Buyong exit. PW6 had stated that he had received a call from PW5 asking him to assist in serving a charge. The Defence noted that PW6 had used the term “serve” and not “draft”. The Defence submitted that that must mean that that the contents of the charge had already been conveyed to PW6.

224 PW6 had explained that he had drafted Exhibits D2 and D3 by referring to DAC 931107-2018 and DAC 931108-2018, which were drink driving and failure to stop charges which PW5 had previously drafted. PW6 admitted that he had not been diligent and prudent in his work as he had failed to check with PW5 on the contents of the charge that he had drafted and he had wrongly assumed that the Accused was travelling at 135km/h at the Buyong exit.

Conclusion of PW6’s Evidence

225 The Defence submitted that two different conclusions could be drawn from PW6’s evidence and both were detrimental to the Prosecution’s case.

226 First, if PW6 was telling the truth, this would reflect the negligent manner in which investigations had been carried out against the Accused. The Defence submitted that evidence should be secured, analysed, and compared before being distilled into a finalized, most accurate version of the Prosecution’s case, which would be reflected in the charge against the Accused.

227 The Defence noted that something so basic as to the location of where an offence had been committed had been erroneously stated in Exhibits D2 and D3. What was worse was that this had a direct impact on the other charges i.e. applying a sudden brake at 135km/h as opposed to 90-100km/h would reflect very differently on the driver’s culpability.

228 Objectively, it showed that PW5, as the officer in charge of the case, had not even bothered to look at Exhibits D2 and D3 before it was served on the Accused. That, together with PW5’s failure in securing crucial evidence and his inconsistencies and defensive conduct during testimony and failure to acknowledge clearly the objective positions, must lead to the conclusion that the investigations against the Accused had been negligently conducted and it was unsafe to order a conviction based on such findings.

229 In the alternative, the Defence had suggested that PW6 had lied during the trial that he was briefed that the Accused was travelling at 135 km/h in the kampong Java tunnel to try to salvage PW5’s reputation and match PW5’s testimony.

230 The Defence submitted that the truth of the matter was that PW5 had ordered PW6 to draft the charge as reflected in Exhibits D2 and D3 as he believed the Accused was travelling at 135km/h near the Buyong exit. This would be consistent with the Accused’s evidence that PW5 did inform him that he was speeding at such a location.

The Defence's Case

Submissions in General

231 The Defence submitted that the Accused had given an honest and credible account of what had transpired and there was a logical and comfortable flow of events. The Accused’s testimony was congruent to his instructions on all the put questions against the Prosecution’s witnesses.

232 The Defence submitted that the following points were clear:

(a) That whilst travelling along the route marked out in Exhibit P6, the Accused believed that his speed to be slightly above 100km/h. The Accused had slowed down when he approached the entrance of the tunnel.

(b) The Accused was sure that he had not been travelling at above 130km/h as he had driven at such speeds before. The Accused was able to give a definitive example, such as when he had driven on the Autobahn in Germany.

(c) Apart from that, the Accused had also taken glances at his speedometer whilst driving and he was sure that he had not driven past 120km/h.

(d) Upon entering the Kampong Java tunnel, the Accused had noticed a police patrol car closing in on him. The Accused had thought that the patrol car had wanted to get past him, and he signalled left and moved to the middle lane, i.e. from the 1st lane to the 2nd lane, to allow the patrol car to pass.

(e) The Accused slowed down, and the patrol car also slowed down and followed him to the 2nd lane. The patrol car then switched on its blinkers. The Accused then signalled left.

(f) A police motorcycle then came up to the left side of the Accused’s car with its blinkers on. The officer gestured to him from the passenger side. The Accused wound down his window and the officer said something like “pull over”. The Accused acknowledged the officer by looking at him and nodding his head before signalling left.

(g) Following that, the police motorcycle slowed down and allowed the Accused to change to the leftmost lane which is closest to the road shoulder. The Accused did not stop immediately as the road shoulder was too narrow to even fit one car

(h) The Accused thought that since he was on an expressway, it would not be wise and safe to stop his vehicle at a road shoulder on the expressway, especially since it could not fit a car. The Accused thought it would be better to stop at the exit which was coming ahead. The Defence submitted that such practice was aligned and provided for in Section 91(d) of the Road Traffic Act (Chapter 276, Section 112) Highway Code.

(i) The Accused testified that after he exited the Kampong Java tunnel, his speed was about 70-80km/h as he had slowed down and had signalled left. The Accused further tapped his brakes to lower his speed before coming to an eventual stop.

(j) After the Accused had come to a stop, he noticed that a police motorcycle had fallen behind him. The Accused confirmed that he did not experience any hit or bump when the motorcycle fell. The Accused alighted and inspected the rear of the car and confirmed that his car was fine and there was no damage to his car.

(k) When the Accused alighted from his car, he wanted to go to PW1 but he was stopped by PW2. PW2 asked him why he had e-braked and the Accused replied that he did not e-brake.

(l) The Accused was of the view that he was not travelling at 135km/h and that he had driven in a careful manner and he had complied with the traffic police’s instructions by signalling and lane changing from the 1st lane to the 3rd lane and maintaining his signal all the way to the Buyong exit. The Accused also stated that he did not jam his brakes to stop his car. The Accused had tapped his brakes before eventually coming to a stop. The Accused also submitted that he did not accelerate at the Buyong exit.

Cross-Examination

233 During cross-examination, the Accused had agreed with the Prosecutor that he had been travelling at a speed faster than the vehicles around him as he had overtaken 2 vehicles when he was driving.

234 At the 2.09 mark of Exhibit P2, the Accused realised that the police vehicles were targeting his car, but he did not know why they were doing so. The Accused realised they were targeting him when he saw the red and blue blinkers turned on. The Accused said that he had noticed PW3 apply the high beams on his car, but he thought that they had wanted him to get out of the way. That was why he moved into lane 2. The Accused was not sure when PW1 had switched on his blinkers as the police patrol car driven by PW3 was close behind him. The Defence noted that the Prosecution had suggested to the Accused that he should have seen PW1 switch on his blinkers through the video footages, but the Accused remained consistent in his testimony.

235 The Accused did not recall PW1 applying a horn but remembered him gesturing. The Accused also could not remember if the siren had been switched on by PW3, but he candidly stated that he was ready to agree to this as the officers had testified that the blinkers come along with the siren.

236 The Accused also said that he did not realize that PW3 had been trying to look at him and did not remember hearing the air horn. However, the Accused was certain that he did not feel any vibration from the patrol car’s airhorn.

237 The Defence also submitted that:

(a) The Accused had decided not to stop his car along the road shoulder from the exit of the tunnel till Buyong exit because the road shoulder was too narrow to accommodate the size of his car;

(b) Even though the Accused did not apply his brakes between 3:17:58 to 3:18:26 in Exhibit P1, that did not mean that the Accused’s car was not slowing down. The Accused had explained that he did not press on the accelerator of his car during this period. Because the Accused’s car was fitted with an automatic transmission, the Accused’s car would have slowed down even though even though he did not apply any braking to his car.

(c) The Accused had also testified that he was travelling at a slower speed when he was approaching the Buyong exit than when he had first exited the Kampong Java tunnel.

(d) On the issue of switching on his hazard lights to warn other motorists before he stopped his car, the Accused was of the view that he would only be required to turn on his hazard lights if his car had presented itself as a hazard after he had stopped his car and there was no need for him to switch on his hazard lights before that.

(e) The Prosecution had suggested to the Accused that he had only formed the intention to enter the Buyong slip road when he was close to the slip road. The Defence submitted that this was not the case because the Accused had turned on his signal lights some time ago. Th Accused had also testified that he had formed the intention to turn into the slip road when he had realised that the road shoulder was too narrow for his to stop his car after he had exited the tunnel. The Defence had argued that the position taken by the Accused was not unreasonable as the Highway Code did not explicitly provide for the use of hazard lights.

238 The Defence further submitted that Exhibit P1 did not show that the Accused had accelerated after exiting the tunnel as the Accused’s car was not seen to have jerked forward at any point of time.

239 As regards to the inconsistencies between the Accused’s statement which was recorded by PW5 and his evidence in court, the Defence submitted that:

(a) As regard to the point where the Accused first saw the police blinker lights, the Accused had explained that he had informed PW5 that he first saw the lights at the start of the tunnel but PW5 had recorded it as at the end of the tunnel in the statement. The Accused had failed to realise the mistake when he read through his statement before he signed the same. That was because he had just woken up and the statement was recorded at the security guard post and not in his residential unit. The Accused was brought back to the police station at around 4.00-5.00 a.m. and was let out on bail at about 3.00 – 4.00 p.m. He was exhausted when he reached home as he had not slept the whole night. When PW5 visited him in the evening, the Accused only had less than 3 hours of sleep. Given the sequence of events, the Defence submitted that it was understandable if the mistake was left uncorrected in Exhibit P11A.

(b) The Accused had also testified that PW5 had told him that he was travelling at 135km/h at the Buyong exit and he had given his answers in that context. He elaborated during re-examination that he was informed that he was captured at the speed of 135km/h at the Buyong Exit, where the incident happened and that was at the time that question 2 in P11A was asked.

Submissions relating to DW2’s evidence

240 DW2 was the passenger in the Accused’s car on the 9th August 2018 at around 3.00 a.m. During the material time of the pursuit, DW2 had testified that she had been toying with her phone while she was in the Accused’s car, but DW2 was of the view that the Accused had not been speeding that much. DW2 had testified that on a scale of 1-10, 1 being a very safe driver and 10 being a reckless and dangerous driver, the Accused was driving at a scale of 4 or 5 and he had been driving at an average speed.

241 DW2 also did not remember anything remarkable about the way the Accused had stopped his car. DW2 said that she just remembered that the Accused had stopped his car after passing through the tunnel.

242 During cross examination, DW2 had explained that whenever she got into anyone’s car, she would be fearful of the speed that the car was travelling. However, during her time in the Accused’s car, DW2 felt comfortable enough to play with her mobile phone. DW2 also said that she was not worried about the speed that the Accused was travelling at. The Defence submitted that this meant that the Accused’s speed was not dangerous.

243 The Defence also noted that the Prosecution had asked DW2 if her perception of the Accused’s travelling speed was based on her feelings, DW2 had initially disagreed but she later changed her position and agreed with the Prosecution. The Defence also noted that DW2 had during re-examination clarified that her feeling about the Accused’s speed was based on what she had seen and experienced.

244 The Defence submitted that DW2 had changed her position relating to the way she felt about the Accused’s speed because she was not able to articulate the further reasoning as to how she had come to feel that way. DW2 had testified that at first instance that she did not know if the police had wanted the Accused to stop the car. The Defence submitted that from DW2’s response, it was clear that there was nothing dangerous about the speed or the manner in which the Accused was driving. That also corroborated the Accused’s testimony that he had not been driving at an excessive speed, but he was driving at a speed which was at or just above the speed limit.

245 The Defence also noted that DW2 had said that she could not remember things clearly, but she remembered the car behind them flashing. DW2 had said that she could not remember the following:

(a) That the police officer had pulled beside the Accused to ask him to stop.

(b) That there were sirens blaring.

(c) And whether the Accused had responded to her query on whether the police had wanted him to stop his car.

(d) That there were two police vehicles close to the Accused’s car

246 DW2 had also testified that after the Accused had exited the tunnel, he had stopped his car. Although the Prosecution had pointed out to DW2 that her evidence was inconsistent, the Defence submit that it should not be construed as such because DW2 had never stated that the Accused had stopped his car immediately after exiting the tunnel and the Accused did stop his car after exiting the tunnel.

247 The Defence also pointed out that when the Prosecution tried to clarify with DW2 as to what she meant when she said that the Accused had stopped his car “normally”, DW2 had explained that she could not speak English properly and the police officer who had taken her statement had demonstrated 3 actions to her and she had chosen the second action. During re-examination, DW2 also explained that what she had meant was that nothing had happened to her body when the Accused stopped his car. The Defence submitted that if the Accused had applied hard/emergency brakes, DW2 would have been flung forward due to the sudden braking. As such, it was clear that the Accused did not apply hard/emergency brake as nothing happened to DW2’s body when the car stopped.

248 The Defence also noted that the Prosecution had suggested to DW2 that it was possible that she was not flung forward when the Accused applied hard braking to his car because DW2 was wearing her seatbelt when the Accused applied his brakes and DW2 had disagreed with the Prosecution’s suggestion.

249 The Defence had submitted that even if the seat belt had restrained DW2’s body, her body would have jerked forward, and a fair amount of pressure would have been applied to the seat belt. The fact that nothing had happened to DW2’s body when the brakes were applied must mean that the Accused had not applied hard/emergency braking when he stopped his car.

Conclusion on the Accused’s Defence

250 The Defence submitted that the Accused had provided clear and cogent testimony in Court. He was able to explain his position through detailed observations with relatable and clear experiences. The Accused’s evidence was also corroborated by DW2 who was not related or close to the Accused. DW2, despite rigorous cross examination, had maintained a clear testimony that gelled with the Accused’s defence.

251 From the above, the Defence submitted that the Defence’s case was compelling. This was further bolstered by objective indisputable evidence such as Exhibit D1 where one could clearly calculate the Accused’s average speed in the Kampong Java tunnel to be 85 km/h.

252 While the Defence accepted that the average speed of 85 km/h did not necessarily mean the Accused could not have been travelling at 135km/h at any point of time, the Defence was of the view that it was not possible for the Accused to have travelled at 135 km/h as that would have meant that the Accused must have travelled at 45km/h at some point of time in the tunnel in order to maintain an average speed of 85km/h. The Defence also submitted that the video footages submitted by the Prosecution also did not support that view. It was also clear from both the Prosecution and Defence witnesses that the Accused had not at any time been travelling at such a slow speed.

Conclusion

253 The Defence submitted that in order to justify a conviction, the Prosecution's evidence must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. In addition, the court must also find that the Accused was unworthy of belief and his evidence incapable of even raising a reasonable doubt.

254 Save for PW4, the Defence submitted that the remaining Prosecution’s witnesses were not credible as their evidence were rife with contradictions, inconsistencies, and logical fallacies.

255 The Defence also submitted that investigations had been conducted in a negligent manner where the failure to produce objective evidence which had been seemingly available had become a theme permeating throughout the Prosecution’s case. All these, together with the Prosecution’s inability to rebut objective findings on the Accused’s average speed, had casted deep doubt on the Prosecution’s case.

256 Given the above, the Defence submitted that the Prosecution had failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, and they submitted that the Accused should be acquitted of all the proceeded charges.

My findings and decision

The law and elements of the charges

For DAC 901382-2019

257 As regards to DAC 901382-2019, section 63(4) of the Road Traffic Act had provided:

“Rate of Speed

63.— (4) Any person who drives a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding any speed limit imposed by or in exercise of powers conferred by this Act shall be guilty of an offence”

258 The Prosecution had submitted, and I agreed with the Prosecution that the elements of an offence under section 63(4) of Road Traffic Act were:

(a) The Accused was the driver of the white Audi car bearing license plate number SKN 3003T;

(b) The Accused had driven the white Audi car on 9 August 2019 at about 3.20 am along the Kampong Java tunnel in the CTE towards AYE; and

(c) The Accused had driven at a speed of 135 km/h which was higher than the speed limit of 80 km/h.

259 In the present case, it was not disputed between the parties that the Accused was driving the white Audi car bearing license number SKN 3003T along the Kampong Java tunnel in the CTE towards the AYE at about 3.20 am on 9 August 2019. It was also not disputed that the speed limit along that stretch of the CTE was 80 km/h.

260 The only dispute between the parties here was the speed that the Accused was driving. The Prosecution’s case was that the Accused was driving at the speed of 135 km/h when he was in the Kampong Java tunnel. The Accused, on the other hand, had admitted that he was driving at more than 100 km/h between the Bukit Timah exit and the entrance of the Kampong Java tunnel but he denied that he was travelling at a speed of 135 km/h when he was in the Kampong Java tunnel.

For MAC 900626-2019

261 As regards to MAC 900626-2019, section 338(b) of the Penal Code had provided:

“Causing grievous hurt by an act which endangers life or the personal safety of others

338 . Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing an act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished – …

(a) in the case of a negligent act, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine which may extend to $5,000, or with both.”

262 In the present case, the elements of the offence under section 338(b) would include:

(a) The Accused had committed a negligent act, to wit, by hard braking his white Audi car when he was at the Buyong slip road of the CTE with PW1 close behind him, and causing PW1 to also hard brake and to skid and fall of his motorcycle.

(b) As a result of the Accused’s negligent act, PW1 had suffered a distal radius fracture.

263 I also agreed with the Prosecution that a “negligent act” in the present case would refer to a failure to behave with the same level of care that was expected of an ordinary and prudent driver who was facing the same type of road and prevailing traffic conditions.

264 In the present case, the following facts were not disputed:

(a) That PW1 was riding close behind the Accused when he stopped his white Audi car along the Buyong exit slip road.

(b) That PW1 had skidded and fallen off his motorcycle when the Accused had stopped his car at the Buyong exit slip road.

(c) That PW1 had suffered the distal radius fracture after he had skidded and fallen off his motorcycle.

265 However, there was a dispute between the parties as to whether the Accused did hard brake before stopping at the Buyong exit slip road and thereby causing PW1 to fall off his motorcycle or whether PW1 was responsible for the accident by following too closely to the Accused.

My assessment of the evidence

266 It was trite law that in a criminal matter, the Prosecution had to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. This included the Prosecution’s legal burden to prove the charge against the Accused beyond a reasonable doubt and its evidential burden to adduce sufficient evidence to address facts that have been put in issue. The burden on the Defence was merely to raise a reasonable doubt.

267 The issue of burden of proof was also considered in the case of Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syed Mallik [2007] SGCA 48 where the Court of Appeal [ at 34] had commented:

“34 …in relation to the requisite burden of proof, it needs no reminding that the burden lies squarely with the Prosecution to prove the accused person’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As Rajah JA said in Sakthivel Punithavathi ([32] supra at [78]):

Whatever is thought about the myriad objectives of criminal punishment, one fundamental principle has been hailed as a cornerstone both at common law and in the Evidence Act (Cap 97 1997 Rev Ed): before an accused can be convicted of a crime, his guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This bedrock principle is sacrosanct in our criminal justice system and constitutes a fundamental right that the courts in Singapore have consistently emphasised and upheld as a necessary prerequisite for any legitimate and sustainable conviction: see, for example, Jagatheesan [[66] supra]; … Took Leng How v PP [2006] 2 SLR (R) 70.

Indeed, the trial judge also alluded to this important principle in his judgment in respect of the second trial (see Mohammed Liton (No. 2) ([30] supra)). At [4] of that judgment, he stated that:

Unlike civil cases, where the court may choose between competing stories and accept the one on a balance of probabilities, that is to say, accepting that version because it seemed more plausible than the other, in a criminal case, there is an important norm to be taken into account at all times – that where there is a reasonable doubt, that doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused. It is inherent (in) the requirements that the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt. [emphasis added]

35. As to what proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” (per Rajah JA in Sakthivel Punithavathi ([32] supra) at [78] means, we would endorse the definition accepted by him in Jagatheesan 9[32] supra at [55]), viz, the description of “reasonable doubt“ as “reasoned doubt” [emphasis in original ] – which in turn mandates that all doubt, for which there is a reason relatable to and supported by the evidence present, be taken into account in favour of the accused . Reasonable doubt might also arise by virtue of lack of evidence submitted, if such evidence is necessary to support the Prosecution’s theory of guilt: see Jagatheesan at [61]. Indeed, the trial judge also similarly referred to such a meaning of the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” in his judgment in respect of the second trial (see Mohammed Liton (No 2) ([30] supra at [41]):

What this means is that unlike a civil case, the court’s verdict might not merely be determined on the basis that as between two competing stories, which version was the more plausible one. In a criminal case, the court may find … the complainant’s story to be more probable than that of the accused person’s version, and yet, be convinced that there is a reasonable possibility that the accused’s person’s story could be true. If that were the case, the court’s duty is to acquit . Unlike a civil case, the court need not make a decision by concentrating on which one of the two versions was more probable. In a criminal trial the court must remind itself to break away from any habitual inclination to contemplate the question of the burden of proof on the basis of a civil case, and instead, ask itself whether there is a reasonable possibility that the accused person’s version was true.” (emphasis mine)

268 Before I embark on the analysis of the evidence adduced in the course of the trial, I also wish to comment on the issue of credibility of witnesses. The Honourable Yong Yung How CJ (as he then was) had in the case of Farida Begam d/o Mohd Artham v Public Prosecutor (“Farida Begam”) [2001] 3 SLR (R) 592 given some insight as to how a judge could make a finding on the credibility of a witness.

269 In Farida Begam, Yong Pung How CJ had held at [9] that a judge could make a finding on the credibility of a witness based on some or all of the following:

(a) His demeanour;

(b) The internal consistency (or lack thereof) in the content of his evidence; and

(c) The external consistency (or lack thereof) between the content of his evidence and the extrinsic evidence.

My assessment of the evidence

270 In the present case, having perused all the evidence presented by both parties, I was of view that the Prosecution had proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt against the Accused in both the proceeded charges.

1. DAC 901382-2019

271 The main issue relating to DAC 901382-2019 was whether the Accused had travelled at a speed of 135 km/h inside the Kampong Java tunnel on 9 August 2019.

272 The Prosecution had submitted that the speeding charge was made out. PW1 had testified that the Accused was travelling at 135 km/h along the Kampong Java tunnel and that PW1’s evidence was corroborated by PW2 and PW3. The Defence’s position was that the Prosecution had failed to show that the Accused was travelling at 135 km/h in the Kampong Java tunnel. The Accused himself had said that he was only travelling at a speed on slightly above 100 km/h.

273 I agreed with the Prosecution that the speeding charge had been made out for the following reasons:

(a) PW1’s evidence was internally consistent:

(i) PW1 had testified that he had noticed the Accused’s white Audi car travelling at a much faster speed compared to the other vehicles which were travelling on the CTE and he had started trailing the Accused at the 3.17.27 mark of Exhibit P1. PW1 also said that he had trailed the Accused for about 400 to 500 metres before he managed to lock the Accused’s speed at 135 km/h on his digital speedometer on his motorcycle at the 3.17.40 mark on Exhibit P1. PW1 also testified that his blinker lights on his motorcycle had turned on automatically when he locked his digital speedometer.

(ii) PW1 also explained that he had maintained a constant distance between himself and the Accused’s car by using the Singapore Police Force logo on his motorcycle windscreen as a reference point and ensuring that the rear of the Accused’s car remained constant relative to the size of the logo while trailing the Accused.

(iii) I agreed with the Prosecution that PW1’s evidence was internally consistent as his evidence was corroborated by what was captured by Exhibit P1 from the period from 3.17.27 to 3.17.40. Exhibit P1 clearly showed the following:

(A) The white Audi car, which was travelling on the 2^nd lane, was travelling much faster that the general traffic at the 3.17.20 mark.

(B) At the 3.17.24 mark, the white Audi car cut into the 3^rd leftmost lane at a very fast speed in front of a yellow taxi which was travelling on the 3^rd lane without signalling right.

(C) PW3, who was driving the patrol car and was behind the yellow taxi, overtook the yellow taxi from the middle lane and gave chase to the white Audi car at the 3.17.25 mark. PW1 who was riding behind PW3 also increased his speed and followed PW3 into the middle lane.

(D) At the 3.17.29 mark, PW3 signalled right and cut back into the 3^rd right lane and he cut in front of the yellow taxi to continue chasing the white Audi car.

(E) At the 3.17.30 mark, PW1 cut into the 1^st leftmost lane to continue chasing to the white Audi car.

(F) It could be seen from 03.17.25 to 3.17.40 mark in Exhibit P1 that PW1 was keeping a constant distance from the white Audi car and he was in fact travelling at a much faster speed that the rest of the traffic on the CTE.

(G) At the 3.17.40 mark of Exhibit P1, I observed a patch of blue light appearing on the screen, ahead of PW1 when he locked his digital speedometer. This was consistent with PW1’s evidence that the front blinker lights of his motorcycle had turned on automatically when he locked his digital speedometer.

(H) I also noted that when PW1’s front blinker lights were switched on at the 3.17.40 mark on Exhibit P1, PW1 was about two hundred metres before the entrance of the Kampong Java tunnel and the Accused’s white Audi car was already inside the Kampong Java tunnel.

(b) PW1’s evidence was externally consistent:

(i) I also agreed with the Prosecution that PW1’s evidence was externally consistent, and it was corroborated by the evidence of PW2 and PW3:

(A) PW2 had given evidence that he had started trailing the Accused just before the Bukit Timah exit along the CTE. This was at the 3.17.32 mark in Exhibit P1. PW2 also said that after trailing the Accused for a distance, he had clocked the Accused’s speed at 135 km/h at the 2.10 mark of Exhibit P2, which was about 100 metres before the Cairnhill Road exit no. 5 which was located within the Kampong Java tunnel. PW2 had locked the Accused’s speed at 135 km/h just before the Accused had applied his brakes to his car inside the Kampong Java tunnel. PW2 had also testified that he had clocked the Accused’s speed at 125 km/h just before the Accused entered the Kampong Java tunnel.

(B) It was clear to me that PW2’s evidence was materially consistent with PW1's evidence and it corroborated PW1’s evidence. Exhibit P1 clearly showed that the Accused had applied his brakes only once when he was in the Kampong Java tunnel and that was at the 2.10 mark of Exhibit P2 when PW3 had switched on his blinkers on his patrol car. This could also be clearly seen on Exhibit P1 where PW3 had switched on the blinkers in his patrol car at the 3.17.47 mark and the white Audi car could be seen to applying its brakes for a split second at the 3.17.48 mark. There were no signs of the white Audi car braking after the 3.17.48 mark.

(C) It was also clear from Exhibit P1 that the white Audi car was travelling at a constant speed from the time that PW1 had started to trail the white Audi car from the 3.17.27 mark till the time the white Audi car applied its brakes at the 3.17.48 mark.

(D) PW2 also confirmed PW1’s testimony that when they locked the speed of the traffic offender on their digital speedometer, the front blinker lights on their motorcycles would switch on automatically.

(E) PW2 had also confirmed that the trailing method which was used by PW1 to capture the Accused’s speed was the same method that was taught to all traffic police mobile officers to enable them to trail and capture the speed of speeding offenders. Basically, the police officer would trail the offender at the speed at which the offender was travelling for a distance before using the digital speedometer to lock the speed of the offender. PW2 had also explained how the traffic police mobile officers were taught to trail and lock the target vehicle’s speed and how they had to undergone training and how they had to pass their training before being allowed to carry out such procedures on their own.

(F) PW3 had also given evidence which had corroborated PW1’s evidence that the Accused had travelled at a speed of 135 km/h in the Kampong Java tunnel. PW3 had testified that he was following the Accused’s white Audi car in the Kampong Java tunnel and just before the Accused applied his brakes, PW3 had looked at his speedometer and his speedometer showed 135 km/h. PW3 had testified that he had looked at his speedometer at the 2.03 to 2.06 mark of Exhibit P2 and he was maintaining the same speed as the white Audi car when he looked at his patrol car speedometer. In addition, PW3 also said that his patrol car was equipped with a speed warning device which would sound when he went beyond 130 km/h and he had heard the speed warning device beeping when he was chasing the Accused on the day in question.

(c) The demeanour of the Prosecution witnesses

(i) I agreed with the Prosecution that PW1, PW2 and PW4 were honest witnesses. All three witnesses had given their testimony in court confidently and when they did not know the answers or if they were unsure, they were upfront about it. I also accepted the examples pointed out by the Prosecution in their submissions.

(ii) I also agreed with the Prosecution that there were no reasons for the 3 witnesses to lie and implicate the Accused. The 3 police officers did not know the Accused, nor did they have any dealings with the Accused before the incident.

(iii) There was also no evidence to suggest that the 3 witnesses had ganged up to concoct such a story against the Accused.

(d) Accused’s story was materially inconsistent and not supported by objective evidence:

(i) I agreed with the Prosecution that the Accused that the Accused’s evidence in court was contradicted by his police statement Exhibit P11A:

(A) Location in the tunnel where the Accused first saw the police blinkers and heard the police sirens:

(I) The Accused had testified in court that he first saw police blinkers and heard police sirens somewhere at the start of the Kampong Java tunnel.

(II) However, in Exhibit P11A, the Accused had told PW5 that he recalled first hearing and seeing the police blinkers and sirens at the end of Kampong Java tunnel.

(B) Where in the tunnel did the police ask the Accused to stop his car:

(I) The Accused had testified in court that he knew that the police was telling him to stop at the start of the tunnel and he was ready to stop.

(II) Exhibits P1 to P3 had captured PW1 pulling up to the left side of white Audi car in the middle of the Kampong Java tunnel and travelling alongside the left side of the white Audi car for almost 10 to 15 seconds before both vehicles reached the end of the tunnel. Exhibit P1 also captured PW1 slowing down at the road shoulder just after the exit of the tunnel.

(III) The Accused also testified that after the PW3 had turned on the blinker lights of his patrol car in the tunnel, the Accused had noticed PW1 pulling up to the left side of his car and gesturing him to pull over. The Accused also said that he had lowered his window to acknowledge PW1’s instruction. So, it was clear from the Accused’s own evidence that he was aware, when he was in the middle of the tunnel, that PW1 had wanted him to stop his car at the road shoulder.

(IV) However, in Exhibit P11A, he was recorded as telling PW5 that the police only told him to stop his car towards the end of the tunnel.

(C) The Accused’s answer to PW5’s Question 2 in Exhibit P11A:

(I) The Accused had answered Question 2 in Exhibit P11A as follows:

“Q2) Your speed captured by police was at 135 km/h in excess of 80 km/h road speed. What do you have to say?

A2) I’m really sorry and remorseful of my actions. I do not know what speed I was driving at that time. I thought I was driving at a normal speed.”

(II) From the question and answer to Question 2 posed by PW5, it was clear to me that the Accused was admitting to the fact that he was speeding, and he was sorry and remorseful of his actions.

(D) Whether the Accused did look at his speedometer

(I) I also noted that the Accused had testified in court that he was driving above 100 km/h between the Bukit Timah exit and the entrance of the Kampong Java tunnel. The Accused also testified that he had looked at his speedometer just before he entered the Kampong Java tunnel and he saw that he was driving just about 100 km/h just before the entrance of the tunnel. The Accused’s testimony in court had clearly contradicted his reply to Question 2 in that he knew that he was driving at a speed which was above the speed limit of 80 km/h along the CTE and it was clearly not possible for him to think that he was driving at normal speed.

(II) However, in Exhibit P11A, the Accused had told PW5 that “I do not know what speed I was driving at that time. I thought I was driving at normal speed”. The Accused also did not inform PW5 that he had looked at his speedometer just before he entered the Kampong Java tunnel.

(ii) The Accused had tried to explain the contradictions in Exhibit P11A by blaming it on PW5 and saying that PW5 had erroneously recorded his statement:

(A) The Accused said that he had informed PW5 that first noticed the police blinkers and that he was aware that police wanted him to stop his car at the start of the tunnel but PW5 had wrongly recorded in Exhibit P11A that it was at the end of the tunnel.

(B) The other reason given by the Accused was that he was very tired at the time Exhibit P11A was recorded and he did not go through the statement properly before signing it.

(iii) I agreed with the Prosecution that the Accused’s claims were unbelievable because:

(A) The Accused had admitted that he had read the statement before he signed the same. The Accused was working as a bank officer at the time of the incident. As a bank officer, I would agree that the Accused would need to handle and go through many legal documents and he would understand the need for the documents to be accurate before he processed the same. In this case, I would expect the Accused to be very careful with Exhibit P11A given his experience as a bank officer especially when he was facing a criminal charge and there was a great likelihood that he could lose his freedom and go to jail if there were mistakes in Exhibit P11A.

(B) I also accepted PW5’s evidence that he did not record the Accused’s statement erroneously and there was no reason to alter or leave out any part of the Accused’s statement to get the Accused into trouble.

(iv) The Prosecution had also pointed out that in an attempt to explain away his statement to PW5 that he did not know what speed he was travelling at, the Accused had offered two different accounts:

(A) The Accused first explained that PW5 had purportedly told him that he drove at 135km/h “at the place of the incident” (which was at the Buyong exit slip road)^{[note: 389]}. He therefore told PW5 that he did not know what speed he was driving at that time.

(B) The Accused later claimed that PW5 had told him that he drove at 135km/h at the end of the tunnel^{[note: 390]}. In response, he told PW5 that he did not know what speed he was driving at that time.

(C) When pressed to clarify PW5’s exact words, the Accused asserted that PW5 had told him that he was travelling at 135km/h at the place where PW1 fell down^{[note: 391]}.

(v) I agreed with the Prosecution that the Accused’s claims should be disbelieved because:

(A) The Accused was internally inconsistent. He had given varying accounts of what PW5 had allegedly told him. The Accused had testified that PW5 told him that he had travelled at 135 km/h at the place of the incident. Subsequently, the Accused said that PW5 told him that he had travelled at 135 km/h at the end of the tunnel. When pressed to clarify, the Accused then said that PW5 told him that he was travelling at 135 km/h where PW1 had fallen down

(B) The alleged exchange between PW5 and the Accused was not recorded in Exhibit P11A. PW5’s question to the Accused had made no reference to the location at which the traffic police officers clocked the accused’s speed at 135km/h. In addition, PW5 had confirmed that he would have recorded his questions verbatim in Exhibit P11A.

(vi) The Defence had also alleged that PW5 had given instruction to PW6 that the location of the speeding was at the Buyong exit slip road and that was why PW6 had stipulated that location in Exhibits D2 and D3. I noted that PW5 had denied giving such instructions to PW6. I also noted that the Prosecution had called PW6 to explain why the location of the speeding offence was reflected as the Buyong exit slip road exit in Exhibits D2 and D3. PW6 had clarified that he had made a mistake on the location in Exhibits D2 and D3 because he had wrongly assumed that the speeding location was the same location where the accident had taken place. Given the above, I would agree with the Prosecution that the Defence’s submission in relation to PW5 and PW6 was baseless and without merit.

(vii) Given the above, I was agreeable with the Prosecution’s submission that the Accused’s claims could not be believed because it was internally inconsistent, and he had given varying accounts of what PW5 had allegedly told him.

(viii) I also noted that the Accused’s position that he could not have driven at a speed of 135 km/h because he had driven at 130 km/h at the Autobahn Germany and he knew how it felt like to be driving at 130 km/h and it did not felt like he was driving at 130 km/h on 9 August 2019. I agreed with the Prosecution that the Accused’s feelings were based on his feelings and it was not objective evidence.

(ix) I also agreed with the Prosecution’s submission that the Accused’s claim that he was driving at just over 100 km/h was not supported by any other objective evidence. The Accused did not inform PW5 during the recording of Exhibit P11A that he had looked at his speedometer and he was driving at just over 100 km/h. However, the Accused did tell PW5 in Exhibit P11A that he did not know how fast he was travelling, and this had contradicted his evidence in court. DW2 who was the Accused’s passenger in his car at the time of the incident had also said that she did not know the actual speed of the Accused’s car at that point of time.

(e) The Accused’s alcohol intake on the night of the incident.

(i) I also noted PW2’s testimony that when he opened the door of the white Audi car, he could smell a strong stench of alcohol. PW2 also said that the Accused had smelled of alcohol breath when he tried to engage the Accused.

(ii) PW2 proceeded to administer the hand-held breath analyser test on the Accused at the site of the incident and the Accused failed the test.

(iii) PW5 also testified that he had administered that Breath Evidential Analyser test on the Accused at the police station at 4.49 am which was about 1 ½ hours after the incident and the Accused’s alcohol level was recorded at 67 microgram per 100 ml. This was almost doubled the passing reading of 35 microgram per 100 ml. Given that the Breath Evidential Analyser test was only conducted at 4.49 am, this would have meant that the Accused’s alcohol level was probably higher than 67 microgram per 100 ml at the time of the incident.

(iv) Given that the Accused was intoxicated at the time of the speeding incident, there was a possibility that his sense of how fast he was driving was affected by his alcohol intake and that could have clouded his judgment at the material point of time.

(v) Given the above, I would agree with the Prosecution that the Accused had been proven to be an unreliable witness and that he had been shown to tailor his evidence.

(vi) I also noted that the Prosecution had made the application to impeach the Accused’s credibility over the inconsistencies in his court testimony and his police statement.

(f) DW2’s evidence was not supportive of the Defence’s defence in his speeding case:

(i) I agreed with the Prosecution’s submission that DW2’s evidence was not supportive of the Accused’s case. DW2 was unable to confirm the Accused’s driving speed save for the fact that she felt that his driving speed was safe. I also noted that she was using and playing with her handphone throughout the whole incident and she could not remember anything relating to the situation in the Kampong Java tunnel save for the fact that she remember the patrol car blinkers which were turned on.

(ii) DW2 had also testified that she would only get into a car if she felt that the driver was a safe driver and she felt safe in the Accused’s car. However, I noted PW2’s evidence that the Accused’s car had smelt strongly of alcohol when PW2 opened the car door and that the Accused PW1 was under the influence of alcohol with alcohol fetor.

(iii) Given the Accused’s alcohol fetor, I would question the objectiveness of DW2’s testimony. I was of the view that no reasonable passenger would find it safe to be driven by a driver who had alcohol fetor and who could fill the cabin of his car with strong alcohol smell. However, in the present case, DW2 had felt safe.

(g) Defence’s theory relating to the Accused’s average speed was unfounded:

(i) I agreed with the Prosecution that average speed over a certain distance was not helpful in determining a person’s speed at any point of time. Even with average speed, it was possible for a person to be travelling faster or slower that the average speed at any point of time.

274 Given the above, I was of the view that the Prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Accused did drive his white Audi car bearing registration plate number SKN 3003T along the Kampong Java tunnel at or about 3.20 am on 9 August 2019 at a speed of 135 km/h which was above the speed limit of 80 km/h.

Other issues raised by the Defence in relation to DAC 901382-2019

1. The fact that there was no documentary evidence tendered by the Prosecution to show that the Accused had travelled at 135 km/h

275 As regards to the Defence’s contention that the Prosecution had not established beyond a reasonable doubt because they had failed to tender any proof that the Accused had indeed travelled at 135 km/h. The Defence had contended that the Prosecution should have produced documentary evidence to show that the Accused had travelled at 135 km/h. The Defence had also submitted that the failure by PW3 to use the radar gun in his patrol car to capture the Accused’s speed and the failure by PW5 to obtain the video footage on PW2’s motorcycle should be taken against the Prosecution.

276 I would wish to state that the burden of proof was on the Prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and the onus was on the Prosecution to tender sufficient evidence to satisfy its evidential burden.

277 As for the type of evidence that parties could tender to court to prove their case, evidence could include documentary evidence, oral testimonies, sound and video recordings, electronic records, or real evidence. It was up to the discretion of the Prosecution as to the nature of evidence that they wanted to tender to court to satisfy their evidential burden and to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. There was nothing in the rules which dictated that the Prosecution had to tender any particular type evidence or evidence of a certain nature. In the present case, even though there were no documentary evidence tendered by the Prosecution to show that the Accused had travelled at 135 km/h, I was of the view that the oral testimony of the Prosecution witnesses and the video footages that they had tendered was sufficient for them to prove their case against the Accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

278 As for the radar gun in PW3’s patrol car, I noted PW3’s testimony that the radar gun in the patrol car could be used when the patrol car was stationery or moving. However, I also accepted PW3’s evidence that the radar gun could not be used in the present case because it had not been properly calibrated as PW3 and the rest of the police officers were on their way to set up a road block operation and they did not expect to come across the Accused speeding along the CTE. I also accepted PW3’s evidence that settings on the radar gun needed to keyed into the radar gun before the radar gun could be put to use and it was not possible to key in the settings when the patrol car was engaged in a high speed chase with a speeding offender.

2. MAC 900626-2019

279 I agreed with parties that the main issue relating to MAC 900626-2019 was whether the Accused had committed the negligent act of hard braking his white Audi car at the Buyong exit slip road which had resulted in PW1 suffering the fracture to his hand.

280 In the present case, it was not disputed that PW1 was riding his motorcycle and he was following the Accused’s car when the Accused’s car had stopped in the Buyong exit slip road. It was also clear from the evidence that PW1 had fallen off his motorcycle and he had suffered a distal radius fracture on his left wrist as a result of the Accused stopping his car along the Buyong exit slip road.

281 The Prosecution’s position was that the Accused had applied hard braking in the middle of the slip road despite knowing that PW1 was close behind his car and the Accused had thereby committed a negligent act which had caused PW1 to skid and fall of his motorcycle and thereby causing PW1’s wrist fracture.

282 The Defence’s position was that the Accused did not hard brake and PW1 had skidded and fallen off his motorcycle because he was following too closely behind the Accused and he could not react in time and had met up with the accident.

283 Having gone through all the evidence, I was prepared to accept the Prosecution’s version of events and my reasons were as follows:

(a) The Accused must have known that PW1 was following him:

(i) Exhibits P1 and P2 showed that PW1 had been riding alongside the Accused ever since PW1 had pulled to the left side of the Accused’s car in the Kampong Java tunnel. The Accused himself had given evidence that he had wound down his car window to acknowledge PW1 when he was in the tunnel and that he was aware that PW1 had wanted him to pull over to stop his car.

(ii) Exhibit P1 also showed PW1 slowing down and making his way towards the road shoulder after exiting the Kampong Java tunnel and the Accused’s car not stopping at the road shoulder and driving away. The Accused’s evidence was that he did not stop at the road shoulder because he had felt that the road shoulder after the exit of the Kampong Java tunnel was too narrow to stop his car and he wanted to drive to the Buyong exit slip road to stop his car as it was safer to stop his car at the slip road.

(iii) In the present case, the Accused was aware that the police were chasing him when PW3 turned on the blinkers of his patrol car when he was following the Accused’s car. It also became clear to the Accused that the police had wanted him to pull over to the side of the road when PW1 went alongside the Accused and gestured to him to pull over to the side. In fact, the Accused himself had testified that he had wound down his window and acknowledged PW1’s instruction by looking at PW1 and nodding his head. The Accused had also given evidence that he was aware that PW1 had slowed down at the road shoulder.

(iv) Given that PW1 had signalled his instruction to the Accused to pull over at the road shoulder and had slowed down at the road shoulder after the exit of the Kampong Java tunnel, it was clear to the Accused that he should have followed PW1’s instruction and stopped his car where PW1 had wanted him to stop.

(v) The evidence also clearly showed that the Accused had not complied with PW1’s instruction as he did not stop at the road shoulder where PW1 had wanted him to do so and he continued to drive ahead.

(vi) Exhibits P1 and P3 had captured the PW1 travelling on the left land and beside the Accused’s car which was in the middle lane in the Kampong Java tunnel. After exiting the Kampong Java tunnel, PW1 could be seen slowing down and signalling and moving towards the road shoulder. The Accused was seen signalling left and filtering from the middle lane to the left lane, but he did not stop at the road shoulder and he continued to drive off at constant speed without any indication that he was going to stop.

(vii) The Defence had submitted that the fact that the Accused had filtered left and had left his left signal lights on clearly showed his intention to comply with PW1’s instruction. I would disagree with the Defence’s reading of the situation. Even though I accept that the Accused had his left signal lights on, the fact that the Accused had continued to drive off at a constant speed with no signs of braking would have sent mixed signals to PW1. Given the situation, it was not unreasonable for PW1 to think that the Accused was not going to comply with his instruction and was planning to drive away without stopping.

(viii) As such, it was reasonable for PW1 to speed up and give chase to the Accused in order not to lose him. And in a high-speed chase situation, one would expect PW1 to try and follow closely to the Accused in order not to lose him. The Accused himself had also given evidence that he was aware that PW1 was either behind him or close to him after he had exited the Kampong Java tunnel till the time he reached the Buyong exit slip road.

(ix) And as the Accused was planning to stop his car at the Buyong exit slip road for PW1, I would expect the Accused to be aware that PW1 was following behind him and that PW1 would be riding his motorcycle close to his car and keep a proper lookout for PW1 before stopping his car.

(b) PW1 was not negligent even though he was following closely behind the Accused

(i) I would agree with the Prosecution that PW1 was not negligent given the circumstances. PW1 was conducting a high-speed chase against the Accused who had failed to comply with his instruction to stop at the road shoulder and had driven off at high speed after he had locked the Accused’s speed at 135 km/h.

(ii) PW1 was trying to apprehend an offender who was posing a risk to other road users. In order not to lose the Accused, it was expected for PW1 to trail the Accused at a high speed from a close distance. As such, I would agree with the Prosecution that it would not be reasonable to expect PW1 to behave like any other normal road user and comply with the speed limit of the CTE or the normal road traffic rules of keeping a distance of one car length for every 15 km/h away from the Accused.

(iii) I also noted that PW1 was an experienced traffic mobile officer who had been trained to conduct high speed chases and he had also been taught how to fall off his motorcycle to reduce the chances of him getting injured in the event that the vehicle that he was chasing would suddenly brake while he was in pursuit of that vehicle.

(c) There was objective evidence to show that the Accused had applied hard braking in the middle of the Buyong exit slip road:

(i) PW1’s evidence was materially consistent. PW1 had testified that the Accused had applied hard braking in the middle of the Buyong exit slip road when he was close behind the Accused. PW1 had testified that when he was following the Accused’s car into the Buyong exit slip road, he was 1 to 2 car lengths behind the Accused’s car. PW1 then saw the Accused suddenly apply his brakes and he skidded and fell off his motorcycle.

(ii) Exhibit P2 also corroborated PW1’s evidence as it captured the brake lights of the Accused’s car come on and off during the 02.52 to 02.54 mark before PW1 fell of his motorcycle. This was also confirmed by PW1 in his testimony in court.

(iii) PW1’s evidence was also corroborated by PW2 and PW3. PW2 had testified that when he saw the Accused’s car enter the Buyong exit slip road, he saw the Accused’s car accelerate for a split second before applying his brakes. PW3 had also testified that he saw the Accused braking hard and releasing his brakes at the Buyong exit slip road when he was closing in on the Accused’s car^{[note: 392]}.

(iv) PW1 had also testified that the Accused’s car had travelled about 4 car lengths before coming to a complete stop after he had applied his hard braking. This was corroborated by Exhibit P2 which showed that the Accused’s car had travelled about 3 to 4 cars lengths before coming to a complete stop.

(v) PW1 had also estimated that the Accused was travelling at about 90 to 100 km/h when it entered the Buyong exit slip road. The Accused, on the other hand, had testified that he was only travelling about 70 to 80 km/h at the Buyong exit slip road. I noted that drivers were taught to keep a safety distance from the car in front of them when they were travelling on the road in case they need to apply their brakes to stop their vehicles. The distance that a car would need to take to come to a complete halt would be about one car length for every 15 km/h of speed. In the present case, I noted that there was a dispute between the parties as to the speed of the Accused’s car when it was entering the Buyong exit slip road. Even if I were to accept the Accused’s evidence that he was travelling at 70 to 80 km/h, the rough distance that the Accused’s car would be expected to travel before coming to a complete stop when he had applied normal braking would be about 6 to 7 car lengths. Given that the Accused’s car came to complete stop about 3 to 4 car lengths after the Accused had applied his brakes, that would suggest that the Accused must have applied something more than normal braking for his car to come to a complete stop in 3 to 4 car lengths instead of the usual 6 to 7 car lengths.

(d) It was not safe for the Accused to apply his brakes knowing that PW1 was close behind him:

(i) In the present case, the Accused was aware that PW1 was following him very closely behind his car when he entered the Buying exit slip road. There was also no evidence to show that the Accused had looked around to ensure that PW1 was not near him when he applied his brakes.

(ii) The Accused had been directed to stop his car at the road shoulder just after the Kampong Java tunnel exit and he knew that PW1 had slowed down at the road shoulder after the tunnel exit. The evidence clearly showed that the Accused did not slow down but he continued to drive his vehicle at constant speed without slowing down. In a situation like that, the Accused, as a reasonably objective driver would have expected PW1 to give chase in order to catch up with him.

(iii) The Accused himself was aware that PW1 was following him closely and he was travelling behind the Accused when he entered the Buyong exit slip road.

(iv) I also noted that PW1’s testimony that there was no cars or obstruction to the road in front of the Accused when he applied the hard braking to his car when he was at the Buyong exit slip road. This was also corroborated by PW2 and PW3.

(v) Exhibit P2 also clearly showed that the Accused had stopped his car in the middle of the Buyong exit slip road. In fact, Exhibit P2 showed that Accused had stopped his car more towards the right side of the Buyong exit slip road rather than at the extreme left side of the slip road which would be the usual position that one would stop one’s vehicle along the slip road. The Accused, by stopping his car in the middle of the slip road, would pose a danger to other vehicles which were exiting the CTE as the vehicles would be exiting the CTE at a relatively high speed and the vehicles could crash into the Accused’s car which was parked in the middle of the slip road and blocking up the whole slip road. The final position of the Accused’s car would seem to suggest that the Accused had not planned to stop his car along the slip road in the normal way and he had stopped suddenly along the slip road.

(vi) Given the fact that the Accused knew that PW1 was chasing him and was close behind his car and that the Accused was planning to stop his car for PW1, the Accused, as a reasonably prudent driver, should have looked around him to ensure that PW1 was not near him before he applied the brakes to his car. In this case, there was no evidence from the Accused to show that he had taken all these precautionary measures before he stopped his car in the middle of the Buyong exit slip road. This clearly showed that the Accused had failed to keep a proper lookout for PW1 before he had applied the brakes to his car when stopping at the Buying exit slip road.

(e) The Accused’s evidence was materially inconsistent

(i) There was no evidence to support the Accused’s contention that he was planning to stop for the police.

(A) The Accused had claimed that after PW3 had driven beside him and gestured for him to stop, he had signalled to his left with the intention of stopping. However, the video footages from the police vehicles which were tendered by the Prosecution clearly did not support the Accused’s contention. Although Exhibits P1 and P3 did capture the Accused signalling left after exiting the Kampong Java tunnel, it also clearly showed that the Accused did not slow down after exiting the Kampong Java tunnel. The video footage did not show the Accused applying the brakes to his car, instead it showed him driving off at a constant speed with no signs of slowing down.

(B) I also agreed with the Prosecution that the Accused must have noticed the police much earlier, near the start of Kampong Java tunnel. The Accused had testified that he first saw the police blinkers and heard the police sirens somewhere at the start of Kampong Java tunnel. The Accused had also admitted that he knew that the police had told him to stop his car somewhere near the start of the tunnel. Yet, the Accused proceeded to drive through Kampong Java Tunnel, exit the tunnel, and travelled along CTE before eventually exiting at the slip road leading to Buyong Road.

(C) I also noted that the Buyong exit slip road was quite a distance from the exit of the Kampong Java tunnel. The Accused’s testimony was that he had intended to stop at the Buyong exit slip road for PW1 after he was caught inside the Kampong Java tunnel.

(D) Objectively, there was no evidence to show that the Accused had made known his intention to PW1 at any point of time. PW1 had directed the Accused to stop his car at the road shoulder after the exit of the Kampong Java tunnel. The Accused’s intention to stop his car at the Buyong exit slip road was only known to himself and it was never made known to PW1 or any of the other police officers who were involved in the chase.

(E) Given the Accused’s above behaviour, it was clear to me that the objective evidence before me did not support the Accused’s contention that he was going to stop for the police and he had intended to stop his car at the Buyong exit slip road.

(ii) The Accused’s assertion that he had intended to stop his car at the Buyong exit slip road because it was safer to do so was unsupported by objective evidence.

(A) I agreed with the Prosecution that the objective evidence did not support the Accused’s above assertion. Exhibit P2 did show the Accused applying and releasing his brakes just before PW1 fell from his motorcycle. This evidence was corroborated by the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3.

(B) The Accused had testified that he did not hard brake at the Buyong exit slip road and he had stopped his car normally. I noted that Exhibit P2 did not support the Accused’s assertion. Exhibit P2 showed the brake lights of the Accused’s car being lighted at the 02.52 to 02.54 mark but it went off after that. If the Accused had applied his brakes gradually, the brake lights should have stayed on throughout even after the 02.54 mark.

(C) The Buyong exit slip road was wide enough for 2 cars to travel side by side. As mentioned earlier, Exhibit P2 had captured the Accused stopping his car in the middle of the slip road nearer to the right side of the slip road when there were no vehicles or obstruction ahead of his car. That was a very dangerous thing to do because there could be other vehicles which were exiting the CTE using the same slip road and these other vehicles could have hit into the Accused’s car as the Accused had stopped his car in the middle of the slip without any prior warning. I also noted that the Accused did not turn on his hazard lights to warn other vehicles even though he was parked in the middle of the slip road which was used for exiting vehicles from an expressway.

(iii) Whether the Accused had left his left signal lights all the time from the exit of the tunnel till the Buyong exit slip road.

(A) The Accused had testified that he had switched on his left signal lights at the exit of the tunnel and he had left the signal lights on for over 15 seconds and that was evidence of his intention that he was going to comply with PW1’s direction. It was clear from Exhibit P1 that the Accused had turned on his left signal just after he had exited the tunnel and his left signal lights were on when he was changing lane from the middle to the left lane. The Accused’s left signal lights were still on when PW1’s camera froze.

(B) However, when Exhibit P3 showed that the left signal light on the Accused’s white Audi car was not turned on when the Accused was turning into the Buyong exit slip road^{[note: 393]}.

(f) The Accused’s consumption of alcohol.

(i) Given that the Accused was intoxicated at the time of the incident, I was of the view that there was a possibility that the Accused’s judgment and his perception of how he had driven on the night of the incident could have been affected by his alcohol intake and that could have clouded his judgment at the material point of time.

(g) DW2 was unhelpful to the Defence’s case.

(i) I agreed with the Prosecution that DW2’s evidence that her testimony on how the Accused had braked his car was not based on any objective evidence and was purely based on her subjective feelings.

(ii) I also agreed with the Prosecution that DW2 was not a reliable witness in that she could not remember the details of the incident and that her memory of the events was contradicted by the video footages^{[note: 394]}.

(iii) And as mentioned earlier, I also had doubts as to the reliability of DW2 as a witness given the fact that she had found it safe to be driven around by someone who was obviously drunk at high speed.

284 I accept that the Accused’s actions should be judged against that of a reasonable and prudent driver on the same type of road and in prevailing traffic conditions. Given the circumstances, I would agree with the Prosecution that a reasonable and prudent driver would not done the following acts that the Accused had done:

(a) Hard braking suddenly without any warning;

(b) Braking in the middle of a slip road exiting an expressway where vehicles were fast moving;

(c) Braking without keeping a proper look out for PW1despite knowing that PW3 was riding close behind him;

(d) Causing PW1 to have no choice but to also apply hard braking to avoid the Accused’s car; and

(e) Causing PW1 to thereby skid and fall.

My decision

285 In the present case, having considered all the evidence before me, I was of the view that the Prosecution had proven both DAC 901382-2019 and MAC 900626-2019 against the Accused beyond a reasonable doubt and I thereby convicted the Accused of both the proceeded charges.

Accused’s antecedents

286 I noted that the Accused had the following antecedents:

(a) The Accused was fined $600 by Subordinate Courts No. 21 for driving without reasonable consideration on 16 September 2015.

287 I also noted that the Accused had committed a total of 14 traffic offences between the period from 27 October 2007 to 23 October 2015 for which he was offered and had paid composition fines for those offences:

(a) 3 offences of speeding;

(b) 1 offence of drunken driving;

(c) 1 offence of inconsiderate driving;

(d) 1 offence of parking within 9 metres of a bus stop;

(e) 1 offence of parking in a no parking zone;

(f) 1 offence of failing to conform to a “no right turn” sign;

(g) 1 offence of failing to stop at a zebra-controlled area;

(h) 3 offences of illegal parking at unbroken double yellow lines;

(i) 1 offence of crossing double white lines; and

(j) 1 offence of failing to provide driver’s particulars when required to do so by the law.

(k) long string of driving offences:

288 The Accused was also given a police warning for drunken driving and being in charge of a vehicle while being under the influence of drink on 17 August 2013.

Sentencing

Prosecution’s Submission on Sentence

289 The Prosecution had sought the following sentences:

(a) For DAC 903182-2019, an appropriate fine; and

(b) For MAC 900626-2019, more than two weeks imprisonment and 18 months’ DQAC.

In relation to MAC 900626-2019

290 The Prosecution submitted that the Singapore High Court in Tang Ling Lee v PP [2018] 4 SLR 813 had established a two-step sentencing framework for accused persons who had claimed trial to road traffic cases that come under s 338(b) Penal Code.

291 At the first step, the court should identify the sentencing band within which the offence in question fell. The sentencing framework laid out three sentencing bands, which have regard to the twin considerations of harm and culpability.

292 The Prosecution submitted that the factors that affected culpability would include:

(a) The manner of driving (i.e., how dangerous the driving was and the extent of danger to road users posed by the offender’s conduct)—where there was speeding, drink-driving, sleepy driving, flouting traffic rules;

(b) The circumstances of driving which might have increased the danger to road users during the incident.

293 The Prosecution submitted that the 3 sentencing bands were as follows:

Category	Circumstances	Presumptive Sentencing Range
1	Lesser harm and lower culpability Harm: Lack of serious or permanent injuries (victim having undergone a relatively brief duration of hospitalisation and medical leave (or none at all) and minimal surgical procedures (if any)	Fines
2	Greater harm and lower culpability OR Lesser harm and higher culpability Where there are two or more culpability increasing factors or injuries of a more serious or permanent nature and/or which necessitate significant surgical procedures	1 to 2 weeks’ imprisonment
3	Greater harm and higher culpability There are at least two culpability-increasing factors and injuries of a very serious or permanent nature and/or which necessitate significant surgical procedures. Serious long-term injuries occasioned to the victim, such as loss of sight, limb, hearing or paralysis in particular, would generally attract the sentencing band in Category 3.	More than 2 weeks’ imprisonment

294 At the second step, further adjustments would need to be made to take into account the relevant mitigating and aggravating factors, which might take the eventual sentence out of the applicable presumptive range.

295 The Prosecution submitted that the present case fell within Category 3, having regard to the following factors:

(a) Greater harm: As a result of the accident, PW1 had suffered permanent incapacity of 7.5%. Even at the time of trial on 17 February 2020, he was unable to fully extend his left hand normally and he could no longer carry heavy objects. Furthermore, he was required to undergo surgery (i.e., open reduction and internal fixation of left distal radius fracture) for which he was issued 30 days of hospitalisation leave from 15 August 2018 to 13 September 2018. PW1 was also given 7 days of outpatient sick leave from 9 August 2018 to 15 August 2018, and medical leave till 7 October 2018.

(b) Higher culpability: The Accused was drink driving. He was speeding. The Accused had also braked abruptly in the middle of a slip road from an expressway when he knew that PW1 was behind him at all material times.

296 The Prosecution submitted that the presumptive range for such an offence was more than two weeks’ imprisonment.

297 The Prosecution also submitted that there were the following aggravating factors present:

(a) Lack of remorse: The Accused had refused to acknowledge that he had caused PW1’s injuries, despite the overwhelming evidence against him. The Accused’s lack of remorse was evident from the conduct of his defence in the course of trial, where he sought to blame PW1 for the incident. In addition, the Accused had also made multiple unsubstantiated allegations against the Prosecution witnesses and the investigations process.

(b) The Accused was traced with relevant antecedents. He was convicted on one count of s 65(b) RTA for driving without reasonable consideration in 2015 and sentenced to a S$600 fine.

Mitigation^{[note: 395]}

298 The Defence had submitted the following mitigation on behalf of the Accused:

(a) The Accused was 37 years old and was unmarried. He was an only child and he resides with his aged mother who suffered from old age ailments.

(b) The Accused’s mother was illiterate and unable to work and she relied solely on the Accused for familial and financial support.

(c) Although the Accused had a relevant antecedent, that was for a minor offence under section 654(b) for driving without reasonable consideration where he received only a fine of $600.

Defence’ Position on Sentencing

299 With reference to Tang Ling Lee, the Defence submitted that the appropriate band range would be on the highest spectrum of Category 1, ie lesser harm and culpability.

300 Lesser harm would include the lack of serious or permanent; not to be confused with the absence of serious or permanent injuries.

301 The Defence noted that the offence for which the Accused was being charged was for causing grievous hurt to a victim where some serious or permanent injury would be occasioned.

302 Category 1 would also include relatively brief duration of hospitalisation and medical leave and minimal surgical procedures.

303 In the present case, the Defence noted that the injury was limited to PW1’s left hand with only one fracture, namely the left radius. The defence conceded that hospitalisation of 30 days would be bordering on substantial but highlighted that only one surgery was needed.

304 The Defence submitted that the Accused’s conduct was one of lesser culpability for the following reasons:

(a) The Accused had not been speeding and had slowed down his vehicle while approaching the Buyong exit.

(b) The Accused had maintained his left signal for at least 15 seconds before turning left to the Buyong exit, clearly illustrating his awareness of PW1’s motorcycle behind him and his desire to inform PW1 of his intention to exit.

(c) The Accused’s braking had not been so abrupt as to have caused his vehicle to skid forward.

(d) The accident was in the wee hours of the morning, not during the rush hours when the volume of traffic was heavy.

(e) The accident was not within a residential or school zone, it was an exit from a highway.

(f) The Accused was not driving any heavy vehicles where a quicker reaction time was needed.

(g) PW1 had been travelling behind the Accused where typically a safe distance should be maintained by PW1.

305 The Defence submitted that a custodial sentence would be detrimental to the Accused as it would result in the loss of his job which he deeply treasured and required in order to support his mother.

306 The Defence submitted that the circumstances of this case evinced a lesser harm and lesser culpability classification. The Defence conceded that there were aggravating factors such as the fact that the Accused had claimed trial, but the Defence submitted that that was not substantial enough to cross the custodial threshold.

307 In the premises, the Defence urged the Court to be compassionate and to impose the maximum fine for each charge.

My Sentence

308 The punishment prescribed for all the offences which the Accused had been convicted were as follows:

(a) For DAC 901382-2019, the punishment for speeding under section 63(4) of the Road Traffic Act with enhanced punishment under section 131(2)(b) of the Road Traffic Act was a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.

(b) For MAC 900626-2019, the punishment for causing grievous hurt by doing an act so negligently as to endanger human life under section 338(b) of the Penal Code was imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years or a fine which may extend to $5,000 or with both.

DAC 901382-2019

309 For speeding offences under section 63(4) of the Road Traffic Act, the sentencing factors that the court would have to take into account would include the speed that the accused was caught driving at, the traffic condition and the nature of the use of the road, whether there was any evidence of alcohol or drug use, whether there was any accident caused and any injury caused to other road users or damage caused to property.

310 In the present case, I noted that the Accused had been driving at a speed on 135 km/h along the stretch of the CTE which speed limit was 80 km/h. The Accused was travelling at a speed of 55 km/h above the speed limit. I also noted that the Accused was under the influence of alcohol when he was driving at the speed of 135 km/h and that he had also been convicted of inconsiderate driving under section 65(b) by Subordinate Court No. 21 on 16 September 2015 and had been given a fine of $600. The Accused had also claimed trial to the said charge.

311 Taking into account the above aggravating factors as well as the fact that the Accused had claimed trial to this charge, I was of the view that a fine of $1,500 in default 7 days was appropriate for DAC 901382-2019.

MAC 900626-2019

312 The main sentencing consideration for a section 338(b) offence was both general and specific deterrence.

313 According to the editors of The Practitioners’ Library – sentencing Practice in the Subordinate Courts, 3^rd Edition, Volume 1, Lexus Nexus, 2013 at [page 317]:

2 Commentary

These offences encompass a wide range of criminal behaviour, and the range of sentences is accordingly broad. In sentencing, the material considerations would be whether the act falls within the negligence or rashness limb and the consequences of the act. The traditional view has been that a term of custody would be appropriate where the act falls under the rashness limb and a fine where the act falls under the negligence limb; see Ngian Chin Boon v PP [1998] 3 SLR(R) 655. Nevertheless, in an appropriate case, an offender charged under the negligence limb may still be sentenced to imprisonment. A term of custody was upheld in Lim Poh Eng v PP [1999] 1 SLR(R) 428 where ‘the negligence of the [offender] was sustained over a period of time in the context of a doctor-patient relationship where the patient was at the mercy of the doctor’s care and competence’. A short one-week custody was imposed in Deng Tin Beng v PP (MA 23/90/01, unreported) (summarised below) where the negligence posed a risk to the safety or lives of many persons. Given that the sections have now been amended to provide specifically for imprisonment and fines for each limb, such a fact-based approach to sentencing should henceforth be taken. Courts should no longer feel constrained to take fines for negligence and imprisonment for rashness as the starting point.

3 Checklist of factors affecting sentence

Seriousness Indicators (+)	Seriousness Indicators (-)
1 Endangering lives of many persons 2 Firearm or deadly weapon involved 3 Serious injury 4 Busy public place 5 Planned 6 Disregard of warnings of danger This list is not exhaustive	Error of misjudgment 2 Momentary risk not fully appreciated 3 Minor injuries This list is not exhaustive

314 In Tang Ling Lee v PP [2018] 4 SLR 813 (“Tang Ling Lee”) , See Kee Oon J, in hearing the appeal had at [23] provided some guidance in the form of a basic analytical framework outlining presumptive sentencing ranges for such offences to help foster more consistency and predictability in this area of sentencing practice.

315 The suggested sentencing framework comprised three broad sentencing bands, within which the severity of an offence and hence the appropriate sentence to be imposed was be determined based on:

(a) The harm caused by the offence (where the degree of harm caused would generally refer to the nature and degree of the grievous bodily injury caused to the victim(s); and

(b) The culpability of the offender (where the degree of culpability would generally refer to the degree of relative blameworthiness disclosed by an offender’s actions, and is measured chiefly in relation to the extent and manner of the offender’s involvement in the criminal act, ie the manner of driving)

(see Tang Ling Lee at [ 25]).

316 See Kee Oon J at [26] had also discussed the considerations/factors which were relevant to section 338(b) offences:

“26 A key ingredient of a s 338(b) offence is that the negligent act must have endangered human life or personal safety. The fact that grievous bodily injury has been caused is itself indicative that the harm occasioned to the victim is not slight or minor. In this regard, the period of hospitalisation leave or medical leave would be a relevant consideration in so far as it represents a medical professional’s opinion as to the length of time required for treatment of the injuries and for the victim to resume his daily activities. Nevertheless, the period of hospitalisation or medical leave is a rough-and-ready proxy for the severity of the victim’s injuries at best, as the assessment of time required for treatment and subsequent recovery may vary from case to case and may also depend on an interplay of various other circumstances, including the opinion of the medical professional as well as the personal characteristics of the victim.

27 In PP v Aw Tai Hock [2017] 5 SLR 1141, the High Court stated (at [37]-[40]) that the factors that affect culpability for dangerous driving offences under s 64(1) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) would generally include:

(a) the manner of driving ie, how dangerous the driving was and the extent of danger to road users posed by the offender’s conduct;

(b) the circumstances of driving which might have increased the danger to road users during the incident; and

(c) the offender’s reasons for driving.

28 I consider that the first two factors in particular are also relevant to s 338(b) offences. In relation to the manner of driving, some examples of situations where culpability would be increased include speeding, drink driving, sleepy driving, driving while under the influence of drugs, driving while using a mobile phone, flouting traffic rules, driving against the flow of traffic or off the road, involvement in a car chase or a racing competition, or exhibiting poor control of his vehicle. These examples are largely drawn from cases such as Edwin s/o Suse Nathen v PP [2013] 4 SLR 1139 (“Suse Nathen”) (at [27]); PP v Hue An Li [2014] 4 SLR 661 (“Hue An Li”) (at [82]-[92]); PP v Koh Thiam Huat [2017] SGHC 123; [2017] 4 SLR 1099 (at [41]); and Stansilas Fabian Kester v PP [2017] 5 SLR 755 (at [56]). These circumstances in relation to the offender’s manner of driving are aggravating due to the increased danger to road users posed by such conduct.

29 Second, the circumstances surrounding the incident should also be taken into account. This would include instances where the offender drives without a licence or while under disqualification. In Suse Nathen (at [28]), it was considered that there may be increased risk where the offender drives:(a) during rush hours when the volume of traffic is heavy; (b) within a residential or school zone; (c) a heavy vehicle that is more difficult to control and requires a quicker reaction time; or (d) where he intends to travel a substantial distance to reach his destination. These circumstances may heighten the danger posed to road users.

30 Where some of the culpability-increasing factors arise, it is of course entirely possible and indeed likely that additional charges may be preferred and proceeded with. In such circumstances, the respective sentences upon conviction ought to be calibrated as appropriate, avoiding loading or double-counting of the culpability-increasing factors”.

317 Bearing the above considerations in mind, See Kee Oon J then laid down the following applicable presumptive sentencing ranges where the accused had claimed trial:

Category	Circumstances	Presumptive Sentencing Range
1	Lesser harm and lower culpability	Fines
2	Greater harm and lower culpability Or Lesser harm and higher culpability	One to two weeks’ imprisonment
3	Greater harm and higher culpability	More than 2 weeks’ imprisonment

318 See Kee Oon J at [32] had also indicated that in sentencing an offender for a road traffic case under section 338(b), the court should undertake a two-step inquiry:

“(a) First, the court should identify the sentencing band within which the offence in question falls, and also where the particular case falls within the applicable presumptive sentencing range, having regard to the twin considerations of harm and culpability, in order to derive the starting point sentence.

(b) Second, further adjustments should then be made to take into account the relevant mitigating and aggravating factors, which may take the eventual sentence out of the applicable presumptive sentencing range.

Examples of relevant mitigating factors may in plea of guilt, stopping to render assistance to the victim(s), a good driving record, and evidence of remorse. Relevant aggravating factors, on the other hand, may include efforts to avoid detection or apprehension and the existence of similar antecedents, which are indicative of persistent or prolonged bad driving.”

319 See Kee Oon J also clarified at [33] that presumptive sentencing ranges were merely starting points which sought to guide the exercise of sentencing discretion, and they were not rigid or immutable anchors. In the final analysis, the appropriate sentence to be imposed would be the product of a fact-sensitive exercise of discretion, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. For avoidance of doubt, an appropriate period of disqualification should also be ordered.

320 In the present case, having considered the facts of the case, I noted that PW1 had suffered a left distal radius fracture. PW1 also suffered permanent incapacity of 7.5%. He was unable to fully extend his left hand normally and he could no longer carry heavy objects. He also could not ride the motorcycle for more than 30 minutes without feeling pain in his left wrist. Furthermore, PW1 was required to undergo surgery (i.e., open reduction and internal fixation of left distal radius fracture) for which he was given 30 days of hospitalisation leave from 15 August 2018 to 13 September 2018. PW1 had been given another 7 days’ of outpatient sick leave from 9 August 2018 to 15 August 2018. In fact, he was on medical leave all the way up to 7 October 2018^{[note: 396]}.

321 Given the nature of the injuries suffered by PW1 and the fact that he had suffered 7.5% permanent incapacity, I was of the view that the harm caused in the present case was high.

322 As for the culpability of the Accused, I noted that the accident had arisen from his refusal to stop his vehicle when he was requested by PW1 to do so in the Kampong Java tunnel. The reason why PW1 had asked him to stop in the Kampong Java tunnel was because PW1 had caught him driving at a speed of 135 km/h which was 55 km/h above the speed limit in the Kampong Java tunnel. I also noted that he was under the influence of alcohol and he had braked suddenly at the Buyong exit slip road when he knew that PW1 was following closely behind him, I was of the view that the Accused’s culpability would fall under the high category.

323 Given the above, I was of the view that the present case should fall under Category 3 of the Tang Line Lee framework.

324 I also noted that the Accused had claimed trial to this charge and that would mean that the usual sentencing discount when a party pleads guilty was not applicable to the Accused. I also agreed with the Prosecution that the Accused had shown lack of remorse by the way he had conducted his defence whereby he had tried to push the blame to PW1 who was just carrying out his duty as a police officer for causing the accident.

325 I had also taken into account the Accused’s mitigation as well as his antecedents and the list of driving offences which he had compounded and had been given warning. Given all these, I was of the view that an appropriate sentence for DAC 901382-2019 was 3 weeks’ imprisonment.

326 On the issue of the Accused’s driving records, in the case of Public Prosecutor v Ong Heng Chua and another [2018] 5 SLR 388 (“Ong Heng Chua”), See Kee Oon J had at [39] held that an driving offences which had been compounded could be taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing:

“39 I held in PP v Koh Thiam Huat [2017] SGHC 123; [2017] 4 SLR 1099 (“Koh Thiam Huat”) that an offence under the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) (“RTA”) (or its subsidiary legislation) which has been compounded can be taken into account for sentencing purposes, and I explained the rationale for doing so at [51]-[60] of the judgment. In the present case, the offender did not dispute that his record of compounded offences could properly be taken into account. This case nevertheless affords an opportunity to further examine why an offender’s record of compounded offences ought to be a relevant sentencing consideration in so far as road traffic violations are concerned.

40 Like composition schemes for minor regulatory offences, the composition scheme for road traffic offences was created to deal with the efficient disposition of less serious traffic violations. This purpose was alluded to in Parliament by the then Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Law, Prof S Jayakumar, in the second reading of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill on 30 August 1985, during which he explained that the rationale for increasing the maximum composition amount was so that “most road offences could be compounded by the Traffic Police instead of being referred to the court” and [o]nly the more serious offences will be referred to the courts” …

41 Although no further proceedings are to be taken against the driver in respect of the offence on payment of the composition sum under s 135(1A) of the RTA, this does not mean that a composition carries no consequence whatsoever and can be conveniently ignored. This is well illustrated by the following examples. A prior composition sets the basis for a higher composition fine to be imposed for subsequent offending, such as in the case of illegal parking offences (see “Targeted measures to deter illegal parking” dated 22 December 2014 on the Land Transport Authority of Singapore website (last accessed on 23 April 2018)). (which are compoundable offences under Road Traffic (Composition of Offences) Rules (S 110/1986) read with Road Traffic Rules (S 171/1981) and s 135(2) of the RTA). Under s 110A(5) of the RTA, it is specifically provided that an offer of composition is to be treated as if the driver had been convicted of that offence for the purposes of determining whether the driver had been convicted of a relevant offence.

42 From what I have outlined in the preceding paragraph, this plainly demonstrates that composition is a relevant indicia of a person’s driving record. It is wholly illogical to suggest that merely because offences have been compounded, the offender’s slate of traffic violations is somewhat wiped clean irrespective of the number of compounded offences he has amassed. If the offender’s record reveal a slew of compounded traffic offences, he is no less a “repeat offender” with a poor driving record in the eyes of the court. Put simply, an offender’s driving record remains a highly relevant sentencing consideration, even if the record consists entirely of compounded offences. If his slate is truly spotlessly clean or merely contains a few isolated blemishes, then the court would justifiably pay no heed to it.

43 As I have explained in Koh Thiam Huat ([39] supra at [55]), the issue of the relevance of composition of a traffic offence for sentencing purposes is separate and distinct from the question of whether composition amounts to an acquittal. The offender may have no prior court convictions but his driving record remains potentially relevant as a sentencing consideration notwithstanding that. All the more so when the offender in question has accumulated 16 compounded offences with corresponding demerit points.

44 I am also conscious of at least two decisions at the High Court level which establish that composition of an offence does not amount to an implied admission of guilt (Re Lim Chor Pee [1990] 2 SLR(R) 117 (“Re Lim Chor Pee”) and Rajamanikam Ramachandran v Chan Teck Yuen [1998] SGHC 259). The judgment of LP Thean J on behalf of the court in Re Lim Chor Pee was cited with approval by Yong Pung How CJ in PP v Lim Niah Liang [1996] 3 SLR (R) 702 (“Lim Niah Liang”) at [18]. Yong CJ reiterated the need to scrupulously observe the principle of autrefois acquit so that an offender who has compounded an offence is not tried again for the same offence. This point is uncontroversial but of no relevance to the present discussion.

45 What is pertinent is that in Lim Niah Liang, Yong CJ went on to hold (at [23]) that given the relatively straightforward nature of littering offences, where most offenders are observed and thence caught red-handed by enforcement officers, it would “not be inconceivable” that composition of such offences amounts to an admission of guilt. I have set out my views in Koh Thiam Huat (at [57]-[60]) as to why I found these observations instructive. Traffic enforcement cameras, especially those recording vehicle speeds or capturing vehicles beating red light signals, are hardly new or unfamiliar technologies in our enforcement landscape. They have become increasingly sophisticated and more reliable and prevalent over time. Turning to the present case, the offender had compounded 12 speeding offences and one offence of failing to conform to a red light signal out of 16 compounded offences in all. In all likelihood, he would have had no viable defence to any of these 13 enumerated offences, since he was probably quite literally caught in the act, whether by an enforcement officer or through enforcement technologies which recorded his violation(s). Unsurprisingly, he did not attempt to suggest otherwise either in the proceedings below or before me.

46 An accused person’s bad driving record is relevant in the case of an offence involving driving because it reflects his attitude towards road safety as well as his unwillingness to comply with the law. Such a record reflects a continuing attitude of disobedience of the law, especially in the case of the present offender, for he has a long string of compositions for traffic violations. The need for specific deterrence indicates that a more severe penalty is warranted. In PP v Aw Tai Hock [2017] 5 SLR 1141 (“Aw Tai Hock”), Steven Chong JA echoed my sentiments in Koh Thiam Huat (at [60]) in this regard and accepted that the court may take into account a compounded offence to better give effect to this need (at [27] of Aw Tai Hock).

47 Moreover, s 228(2)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) stipulates that the Prosecution’s address on sentence may include “any relevant factors which may affect the sentence’. A bad driving record as demonstrated by a long history of compounded traffic offences is incontrovertibly one such relevant consideration. Taking into account the accused’s driving history allows for a more holistic approach in assessing the level of specific deterrence necessary in the particular case. It would also better serve the need for general deterrence and retribution where appropriate.

48 The District Judge was conscious of the offender’s bad driving record but he observed that this had to be viewed in the context of him being a taxi driver for a period of 39 years (at [26] of GD ([10] supra)). This may have been no more than a passing remark simply commenting on the relative frequency of the commission of driving offences measured against the offender’s lengthy driving experience. However, it would appear that the District Judge was in fact implying that some leniency could be accorded to the offender because he was a taxi driver who had spent long hours and many years on the road and for whom there was perhaps a higher probability of committing traffic violations compared to other drivers. With respect, the District Judge had taken an unjustifiably lenient view in determining the weight attached to the offender’s driving record. Working as a taxi driver as a means of one’s livelihood arguably means that one should take even more care while driving since others’ lives and personal safety are in one’s hands. There is no cogent basis to hold taxi drivers to a lower standard of care or allow them more leeway as far as requirements to abide by traffic rules are concerned.”

327 On the issue of disqualification, the Prosecution had sought a disqualification period of 18 months for the Accused for MAC 900626-2019.

328 I noted that the general range for disqualification in section 338(b) cases was between 12 months to 3 years. See Kee Oon J had taken the same position in Ong Heng Chua at [58]:

“58 A brief survey of various reported s 338(b) road traffic cases shows that the disqualification periods imposed are generally within the range of 12 months to three years. At the lower end of the range are cases such as PP v Sia Chee Han [2015] SGMC 18 (“Sia Chee Han”) and PP v Zhang Xiang Guo [2015] SGDC 98 (“Zhang Xiang Guo”) were a 12-month disqualification period was imposed. At the other end of the range are cases such as Kaleeswaran Sudarsan v PP [2017] SGMC 67 9 (“Kaleeswaran Sudarsan”), PP v Lim Gim Chye [2017] SGMC 60 (“Lim Gim Chye”) and PP v Koh Saw Khim [2015] SGMC 38 (“Koh Saw Khim”) where a disqualification period of three years was imposed (on appeal in the case of Koh Saw Khim). The offenders in those cases at the lower end of the disqualification range were often untraced, as in Sia Chee Han and Zhang Xiang Guo. On the other hand, the offenders in cases at the higher end of the disqualification range often had traffic offence records, as in Kaleeswaran Sudarsan (with three previous compositions, including careless driving under r 29 of the Road Traffic Rules compounded shortly before the commission of his offence), Lim Gim Chye (with one composition for speeding in 2016, one composition for failing to obey traffic sign in 2013 and two compositions in 1999 for speeding and using a mobile telephone while driving) and Koh Saw Khim (with a conviction of causing death by rash or negligent act).

59 I would also refer to Tang Ling Lee ([17] supra) in this regard. There, a disqualification period of two years was imposed, where the culpability of the offender was moderate to high and the harm caused was substantial. The substantial harm and moderate to high culpability warranted a two year unblemished driving record.

Relevant considerations

60 Sundaresh Menon CJ discussed the general sentencing objectives underpinning disqualification orders in Edwin s/o Suse Nathen v PP [2013] 4 SLR 1139 at [13] [14]:

A disqualification order combines three sentencing objectives: punishment, protection of the public and deterrence (see Peter Wallis gen ed, Wilkinson’s Road Traffic Offences (Sweet & Maxwell, 20th Ed, 2001) at para 4.412; Kow Keng Siong, Sentencing Principles in Singapore (Academy Publishing, 2009) at paras 32.150 …

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.

These principles are equally applicable to all categories of cases where disqualification ought to be considered.

61 The most important sentencing principles engaged in disqualification orders are the protection of society, because the objective of disqualification orders is to prevent future harm that the offender may cause to the public, and deterrence, because such orders deprive offenders of the freedom to drive. In line with these principles, greater weight should be placed on the culpability of the offender in the commission of the offence as well as his driving record. These reflect how much of a danger he poses to society, and are also indicative of the degree of specific deterrence necessary. The precedents, as set out above at [53]-[59], are generally consistent with this analysis.”

329 In the present case, the Accused’s culpability and harm were both at the high level. Taking into account all the aggravating factors in the present and the Accused’s bad driving record, and taking into account that he had claimed trial to the charge, I was of the view that a disqualification period of 18 months was not manifestly excessive given the lengths of disqualifications imposed in the cases discussed in Ong Heng Chua.

330 I also did not make any compensation order under the CPC as the Accused had indicated that he was having financial difficulties and the Prosecution had confirmed that they were not seeking any compensation order against the Accused.

Conclusion

331 In the premises, having considered all the circumstances of the case, I accordingly imposed the following sentences on the Accused:

S/N	Charge No.	Sentence
1	DAC 901382-2019	Fine of $1,500 default 7 days’ imprisonment
2	MAC 900626-2019	3 weeks’ imprisonment and DQAC 18 months from the date of the Accused’s release from prison.
Total sentence		3 weeks’ imprisonment and DQAC of 18 months to take effect from the date of the Accused’s release from prison and a fine of $1,500 in default 7 days’ imprisonment

332 The Accused being dissatisfied with my decision has filed his Notice of Appeal against my orders on conviction and sentence. The Accused had also applied for a stay of execution of my order and I had granted a stay of the imprisonment term, the payment of the fine and the disqualification pending appeal. I had also granted the Accused bail pending appeal.[Context] [Hide Context]

^{[note: 1]}NE Day 1 Page 3

^{[note: 2]}NE Day 1 Page 3-4

^{[note: 3]}NE Day 1 Page 4

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

^{[note: 5]}NE Day 1 Page 4

^{[note: 6]}NE Day 1 Page 4-5

^{[note: 7]}NE Day 1 Page 4

^{[note: 8]}NE Day 1 Page 5

^{[note: 9]}NE Day 1 Page 6

^{[note: 10]}NE Day 1 Page 9, see 03.17.18 to 03.17.20 of Exhibit P1

^{[note: 11]}NE Day 1 Page 10

^{[note: 12]}NE Day 1 Page 11

^{[note: 13]}NE Day 1 Page 11

^{[note: 14]}NE Day 1 Page 12

^{[note: 15]}NE Day 1 Page 12-13, 16

^{[note: 16]}NE Day 1 Page 12-15, see 03.17.40 of Exhibit P1 when the blue lights came onto the screen

^{[note: 17]}NE Day 1 Page 56

^{[note: 18]}NE Day 1 Page 15

^{[note: 19]}NE Day 1 Page 17

^{[note: 20]}NE Day 1 Page 17

^{[note: 21]}NE Day 1 Page 57

^{[note: 22]}NE Day 1 Page 18-19, see 03.17.47 to 03.17.52 of Exhibit P1

^{[note: 23]}NE Day 1 Page 19-20

^{[note: 24]}NE Day 1 Page 20

^{[note: 25]}NE Day 1 Page 20, see 03.18.05 of Exhibit P1

^{[note: 26]}NE Day 1 Page 21, see 03.18.11 of Exhibit P1

^{[note: 27]}NE Day 1 Page 21, 22, see 03.18.11 of Exhibit P1

^{[note: 28]}NE Day 1 Page 21, see 03.18.12 to 03.18.13 of Exhibit P1

^{[note: 29]}NE Day 1 Page 22

^{[note: 30]}NE Day 1 Page 22-23

^{[note: 31]}NE Day 1 Page 23

^{[note: 32]}NE Day 1 Page 24, see 02.40 of Exhibit P3.

^{[note: 33]}NE Day 1 Page 24

^{[note: 34]}NE Day 1 Page 25-26, see 02.50 of Exhibit P2

^{[note: 35]}NE Day 1 Page 58

^{[note: 36]}NE Day 1 Page 59

^{[note: 37]}NE Day 1 Page 26-27

^{[note: 38]}NE Day 1 Page 27-28, see Exhibit P4 which was PW1’s medical report

^{[note: 39]}NE Day 1 Page 29

^{[note: 40]}NE Day 1 Page 31

^{[note: 41]}NE Day 1 Page 37

^{[note: 42]}NE Day 1 Page 38

^{[note: 43]}NE Day 1 Page 40-41

^{[note: 44]}NE Day 1 Page 41-42

^{[note: 45]}NE Day 1 Page 42

^{[note: 46]}NE Day 1 Page 48-49

^{[note: 47]}NE Day 1 Page 45

^{[note: 48]}NE Day 1 Page 44-45

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

^{[note: 50]}NE Day 1 Page 54

^{[note: 51]}NE Day 1 Page 51-52

^{[note: 52]}NE Day 1 Page 63

^{[note: 53]}NE Day 1 Page 63

^{[note: 54]}NE Day 1 Page 63

^{[note: 55]}NE Day 1 Page 63

^{[note: 56]}NE Day 1 Page 64

^{[note: 57]}NE Day 1 Page 65

^{[note: 58]}NE Day 1 Page 98

^{[note: 59]}NE Day 1 Page 99

^{[note: 60]}NE Day 1 Page 99

^{[note: 61]}NE Day 1 Page 64, 101

^{[note: 62]}NE Day 1 Page 65

^{[note: 63]}NE Day 1 Page 66

^{[note: 64]}NE Day 1 Page 71-72, see 02.10 of Exhibit P2

^{[note: 65]}NE Day 1 Page 88-89

^{[note: 66]}NE Day 1 Page 90

^{[note: 67]}NE Day 1 Page 72

^{[note: 68]}NE Day 1 Page 73, 92-93, 101

^{[note: 69]}NE Day 1 Page 73, Day 2 Page 2

^{[note: 70]}NE Day 2 Page 2

^{[note: 71]}NE Day 1 Page 73

^{[note: 72]}NE Day 1 Page 74

^{[note: 73]}NE Day 1 Page 79

^{[note: 74]}NE Day 2 Page 3

^{[note: 75]}NE Day 2 Page 4

^{[note: 76]}NE Day 1 Page 74

^{[note: 77]}NE Day 1 Page 75

^{[note: 78]}NE Day 1 Page 76

^{[note: 79]}NE Day 1 Page 77

^{[note: 80]}NE Day 1 Page 77

^{[note: 81]}NE Day 1 Page 78

^{[note: 82]}NE Day 1 Page 78

^{[note: 83]}NE Day 1 Page 79

^{[note: 84]}NE Day 1 Page 83

^{[note: 85]}NE Day 1 Page 81

^{[note: 86]}NE Day 1 Page 81

^{[note: 87]}NE Day 1 Page 82

^{[note: 88]}NE Day 1 Page 82, 84

^{[note: 89]}NE Day 1 Page 82

^{[note: 90]}NE Day 1 Page 83

^{[note: 91]}NE Day 1 Page 84

^{[note: 92]}NE Day 1 Page 86

^{[note: 93]}NE Day 2 Page 5

^{[note: 94]}NE Day 2 Page 5

^{[note: 95]}NE Day 2 Page 6, see 02.20 in Exhibit P2

^{[note: 96]}NE Day 1 Page 85

^{[note: 97]}NE Day 1 Page 85

^{[note: 98]}NE Day 1 Page 87

^{[note: 99]}NE Day 2 Page 11-12

^{[note: 100]}NE Day 2 Page 12

^{[note: 101]}NE Day 2 Page 12

^{[note: 102]}NE Day 2 Page 12

^{[note: 103]}NE Day 2 Page 14, see 01.46 to 01.52 of Exhibit P2

^{[note: 104]}NE Day 2 Page 14

^{[note: 105]}NE Day 2 Page 14

^{[note: 106]}NE Day 2 Page 14-15, see 01.54 to 01.59 of Exhibit P2

^{[note: 107]}NE Day 2 Page 15

^{[note: 108]}NE Day 2 Page 30

^{[note: 109]}NE Day 2 Page 16

^{[note: 110]}NE Day 2 Page 16

^{[note: 111]}NE Day 2 Page 16, see 02.60 of Exhibit P2

^{[note: 112]}NE Day 2 Page 31-32

^{[note: 113]}NE Day 2 Page 17

^{[note: 114]}NE Day 2 Page 29

^{[note: 115]}NE Day 2 Page 30

^{[note: 116]}NE Day 2 Page 18

^{[note: 117]}NE Day 2 Page 18

^{[note: 118]}NE Day 2 Page 32-33

^{[note: 119]}NE Day 2 Page 18

^{[note: 120]}NE Day 2 Page 18

^{[note: 121]}NE Day 2 Page 18-19

^{[note: 122]}NE Day 2 Page 19

^{[note: 123]}NE Day 2 Page 17

^{[note: 124]}NE Day 2 Page 27-28

^{[note: 125]}NE Day 2 Page 45

^{[note: 126]}NE Day 2 Page 20

^{[note: 127]}NE Day 2 Page 20-21, see 00.38 to 00.42 of Exhibit P3

^{[note: 128]}NE Day 2 Page 21

^{[note: 129]}NE Day 2 Page 22

^{[note: 130]}NE Day 2 Page 22

^{[note: 131]}NE Day 2 Page 22, see 02.35 to 02.52 of Exhibit P2

^{[note: 132]}NE Day 2 Page 25-26, see 02.48 to 02.54 of Exhibit P2

^{[note: 133]}NE Day 2 Page 24-25

^{[note: 134]}NE Day 2 Page 23

^{[note: 135]}NE Day 2 Page 26

^{[note: 136]}NE Day 2 Page 35-38

^{[note: 137]}NE Day 2 Page 26-27

^{[note: 138]}NE Day 2 Page 46-47

^{[note: 139]}NE Day 2 Page 47

^{[note: 140]}NE Day 2 Page 51-52

^{[note: 141]}NE Day 2 Page 47

^{[note: 142]}NE Day 2 Page 48

^{[note: 143]}NE Day 2 Page 48-49

^{[note: 144]}NE Day 2 Page 49

^{[note: 145]}NE Day 2 Page 49

^{[note: 146]}NE Day 1 Page 50, see Exhibit P5

^{[note: 147]}NE Day 2 Page 51

^{[note: 148]}NE Day 2 Page 55

^{[note: 149]}NE Day 2 Page 53

^{[note: 150]}NE Day 2 Page 56

^{[note: 151]}NE Day 2 Page 60-61

^{[note: 152]}NE Day 2 Page 63-64

^{[note: 153]}NE Day 2 Page 71

^{[note: 154]}NE Day 2 Page 66

^{[note: 155]}NE Day 2 Page 69, see Exhibit P8

^{[note: 156]}NE Day 2 Page 70

^{[note: 157]}NE Day 2 Page 72

^{[note: 158]}NE Day 2 Page 74

^{[note: 159]}NE Day 2 Page 76-77

^{[note: 160]}NE Day 2 Page 83-84

^{[note: 161]}NE Day 2 Page 84

^{[note: 162]}NE Day 2 Page 85

^{[note: 163]}NE Day 2 Page 85

^{[note: 164]}NE Day 4 Page 18

^{[note: 165]}NE Day 4 Page 27

^{[note: 166]}NE Day 4 Page 27-28

^{[note: 167]}NE Day 4 Page 47

^{[note: 168]}NE Day 4 Page 31

^{[note: 169]}NE Day 4 Page 19

^{[note: 170]}NE Day 4 Page 21

^{[note: 171]}NE Day 4 Page 22-23

^{[note: 172]}NE Day 4 Page 24, 32

^{[note: 173]}NE Day 4 Page 24

^{[note: 174]}NE Day 4 Page 25

^{[note: 175]}NE Day 4 Page 25-26, 46-47

^{[note: 176]}NE Day 4 Page 26

^{[note: 177]}NE Day 4 Page 26

^{[note: 178]}NE Day 4 Page 33-34

^{[note: 179]}NE Day 4 Page 36-38

^{[note: 180]}NE Day 4 Page 41

^{[note: 181]}NE Day 4 Page 41

^{[note: 182]}NE Day 4 Page 46

^{[note: 183]}NE Day 4 Page 42

^{[note: 184]}NE Day 4 Page 43

^{[note: 185]}NE Day 5 Page 3

^{[note: 186]}NE Day 5 Page 3-4

^{[note: 187]}NE Day 5 Page 9

^{[note: 188]}NE Day 5 Page 5

^{[note: 189]}NE Day 5 Page 6-7, 9, 16

^{[note: 190]}NE Day 5 Page 8

^{[note: 191]}NE Day 5 Page 16

^{[note: 192]}NE Day 5 Page 9-11

^{[note: 193]}NE Day 5 Page 12

^{[note: 194]}NE Day 3 Page 3

^{[note: 195]}NE Day 3 Page 6

^{[note: 196]}NE Day 3 Page 5

^{[note: 197]}NE Day 3 Page 6, Day 4 Page 12

^{[note: 198]}NE Day 4 Page 13

^{[note: 199]}NE Day 3 Page 7

^{[note: 200]}NE Day 3 Page 7

^{[note: 201]}NE Day 3 Page 7

^{[note: 202]}NE Day 3 Page 8

^{[note: 203]}NE Day 3 Page 8

^{[note: 204]}NE Day 3 Page 8

^{[note: 205]}NE Day 3 Page 8

^{[note: 206]}NE Day 3 Page 9

^{[note: 207]}NE Day 3 Page 9

^{[note: 208]}NE Day 3 Page 10

^{[note: 209]}NE Day 3 Page 10

^{[note: 210]}NE Day 3 Page 10

^{[note: 211]}NE Day 3 Page 10

^{[note: 212]}NE Day 3 Page 10

^{[note: 213]}NE Day 3 Page 12

^{[note: 214]}NE Day 3 Page 12

^{[note: 215]}NE Day 3 Page 12

^{[note: 216]}NE Day 3 Page 12-13

^{[note: 217]}NE Day 3 Page 13

^{[note: 218]}NE Day 3 Page 17-18

^{[note: 219]}NE Day 3 Page 18

^{[note: 220]}NE Day 3 Page 14-15

^{[note: 221]}NE Day 3 Page 15-16

^{[note: 222]}NE Day 3 Page 22

^{[note: 223]}NE Day 3 Page 23-24

^{[note: 224]}NE Day 3 Page 25

^{[note: 225]}NE Day 3 Page 25-26

^{[note: 226]}NE Day 4 Page 11

^{[note: 227]}NE Day 3 Page 26

^{[note: 228]}NE Day 3 Page 27, 65

^{[note: 229]}NE Day 3 Page 65

^{[note: 230]}NE Day 3 Page 29-31, see 03.17.40 of Exhibit P1, 02.02 of Exhibit P3

^{[note: 231]}NE Day 3 Page 33-34

^{[note: 232]}NE Day 3 Page 34, see 03.17.52 of Exhibit P1

^{[note: 233]}NE Day 3 Page 35

^{[note: 234]}NE Day 3 Page 36-37

^{[note: 235]}NE Day 3 Page 39, see 02-09 to 02.51 of Exhibit P2

^{[note: 236]}NE Day 4 Page 11

^{[note: 237]}NE Day 3 Page 39, 43, Day 4 Page 8

^{[note: 238]}NE Day 3 Page 60

^{[note: 239]}NE Day 3 Page 61

^{[note: 240]}NE Day 3 Page 54

^{[note: 241]}NE Day 3 Page 49

^{[note: 242]}NE Day 3 Page 49-50

^{[note: 243]}NE Day 3 Page 50, see 03.17.58 to 03.18.26 of Exhibit P1, Day 4 Page 7-8

^{[note: 244]}NE Day 3 Page 51-52

^{[note: 245]}NE Day 3 Page 55

^{[note: 246]}NE Day 3 Page 55-57

^{[note: 247]}NE Day 3 Page 58

^{[note: 248]}NE Day 4 Page 10

^{[note: 249]}NE Day 3 Page 59

^{[note: 250]}NE Day 3 Page 59

^{[note: 251]}NE Day 3 Page 61

^{[note: 252]}NE Day 3 Page 62

^{[note: 253]}NE Day 3 Page 63

^{[note: 254]}NE Day 3 Page 66

^{[note: 255]}NE Day 3 Page 67

^{[note: 256]}NE Day 3 Page 72, 77

^{[note: 257]}NE Day 3 Page 77

^{[note: 258]}NE Day 3 Page 74

^{[note: 259]}NE Day 3 Page 78

^{[note: 260]}NE Day 3 Page 81

^{[note: 261]}NE Day 3 Page 85

^{[note: 262]}NE Day 3 Page 91

^{[note: 263]}NE Day 3 Page 86-89, Day 4 Page 15

^{[note: 264]}NE Day 4 Page 6

^{[note: 265]}NE Day 5 Page 19

^{[note: 266]}NE Day 5 Page 20-21

^{[note: 267]}NE Day 5 Page 44

^{[note: 268]}NE Day 5 Page 45

^{[note: 269]}NE Day 5 Page 21

^{[note: 270]}NE Day 5 Page 22-23

^{[note: 271]}NE Day 5 Page 26

^{[note: 272]}NE Day 5 Page 44

^{[note: 273]}NE Day 5 Page 24-26

^{[note: 274]}NE Day 5 Page 27, 41

^{[note: 275]}NE Day 5 Page 27-28, 40

^{[note: 276]}NE Day 5 Page 29

^{[note: 277]}NE Day 5 Page 29

^{[note: 278]}NE Day 5 Page 30

^{[note: 279]}NE Day 5 Page 32

^{[note: 280]}NE Day 5 Page 30

^{[note: 281]}NE Day 5 Page 30-31

^{[note: 282]}NE Day 5 Page 38

^{[note: 283]}NE Day 5 Page 33

^{[note: 284]}NE Day 5 Page 33

^{[note: 285]}NE Day 5 Page 33

^{[note: 286]}NE Day 5 Page 35

^{[note: 287]}NE Day 5 Page 35

^{[note: 288]}NE Day 5 Page 36

^{[note: 289]}See Prosecution’s Closing Submissions filed on 5 April 2021 and the Prosecution’s Reply Submissions filed on 23 April 2021

^{[note: 290]}NE Day 5 Page 23

^{[note: 291]}NE Day 3 Page 15-16

^{[note: 292]}NE Day 1 Page 63

^{[note: 293]}NE Day 2 Page 12

^{[note: 294]}NE Day 2 Page 28

^{[note: 295]}NE Day 3 Page 97

^{[note: 296]}NE Day 1 Page 5

^{[note: 297]}NE Day 1 Page 16

^{[note: 298]}NE Day 1 Page 57

^{[note: 299]}NE Day 1 Page 17

^{[note: 300]}NE Day 1 Page 12

^{[note: 301]}NE Day 1 Page 14

^{[note: 302]}NE Day 1 Page 15

^{[note: 303]}NE Day 2 Page 71

^{[note: 304]}NE Day 1 Page 16

^{[note: 305]}NE Day 1 Page 12

^{[note: 306]}NE Day 1 Page 43

^{[note: 307]}NE Day 1 Page 64

^{[note: 308]}NE Day 1 Page 66

^{[note: 309]}NE Day 1 Page 79

^{[note: 310]}NE Day 1 Page 64-65

^{[note: 311]}NE Day 1 Page 66

^{[note: 312]}NE Day 1 Page 65

^{[note: 313]}NE Day 1 Page 102

^{[note: 314]}NE Day 2 Page 16

^{[note: 315]}NE Day 2 Page 14, 17

^{[note: 316]}NE Day 2 Page 16-17

^{[note: 317]}NE Day 2 Page 31-32

^{[note: 318]}NE Day 2 Page 29-30

^{[note: 319]}NE Day 1 Page 42

^{[note: 320]}NE Day 1 Page 40

^{[note: 321]}NE Day 1 Page 43

^{[note: 322]}NE Day 2 Page 3

^{[note: 323]}NE Day 2 Page 4

^{[note: 324]}NE Day 2 Page 28

^{[note: 325]}NE Day 1 Page 3

^{[note: 326]}NE Day 1 Page 37

^{[note: 327]}NE Day 1 Page 63

^{[note: 328]}NE Day 2 Page 12

^{[note: 329]}NE Day 1 Page 75-76

^{[note: 330]}NE Day 1 Page 74

^{[note: 331]}NE Day 1 Page 75

^{[note: 332]}NE Day 3 Page 7

^{[note: 333]}NE Day 3 Page 6-7

^{[note: 334]}NE Day 3 Page 73-74; NE Day 3 Page 33; NE Day 3 Page 35. The Accused testified that he first noticed the blinkers of the patrol car come on at 3:17:47 of Exhibit P1, which captured footage somewhere at the start of Kampong Java Tunnel. He stated that he believed that the sirens were also turned on, when the blinkers came on.

^{[note: 335]}Exhibit P11A at Q1, A1

^{[note: 336]}NE Day 3 Page 74

^{[note: 337]}Exhibit P11A at Q3, A3

^{[note: 338]}NE Day 3 Page 5

^{[note: 339]}Exhibit P11A at Q2, A2

^{[note: 340]}NE Day 4 Page 24-25

^{[note: 341]}NE Day 3 Page 85

^{[note: 342]}NE Day 3 Page 86

^{[note: 343]}NE Day 3 Page 89

^{[note: 344]}Exhibit P11A at Q2

^{[note: 345]}NE Day 3 Page 69; NE Day 4 Page 2. The Accused’s credibility was impeached on Day 3 of the trial.

^{[note: 346]}NE Day 3 Page 67

^{[note: 347]}NE Day 3 Page 68

^{[note: 348]}NE Day 5 Page 23

^{[note: 349]}NE Day 5 Page 26

^{[note: 350]}NE Day 5 Page 27, 41

^{[note: 351]}NE Day 5 Page 23

^{[note: 352]}NE Day 2 Page 44

^{[note: 353]}NE Day 2 Page 33

^{[note: 354]}NE Day 6 Page 6

^{[note: 355]}NE Day 4 Page 6

^{[note: 356]}Exhibit P4

^{[note: 357]}Exhibit P4

^{[note: 358]}Exhibit P4, NE Day 1 Page 28

^{[note: 359]}NE Day 1 Page 31

^{[note: 360]}NE Day 1 Page 29

^{[note: 361]}Exhibit P10

^{[note: 362]}NE Day 1 Page 23

^{[note: 363]}NE Day 1 Page 23

^{[note: 364]}NE Day 1 Page 23

^{[note: 365]}NE Day 1 Page 23

^{[note: 366]}NE Day 1 Page 49

^{[note: 367]}NE Day 1 Page 50

^{[note: 368]}NE Day 2 Page 5

^{[note: 369]}NE Day 2 Page 26

^{[note: 370]}NE Day 2 Page 22

^{[note: 371]}NE Day 2 Page 23

^{[note: 372]}NE Day 2 Page 25

^{[note: 373]}NE Day 3 Page 59

^{[note: 374]}NE Day 3 Page 8

^{[note: 375]}NE Day 3 Page 9

^{[note: 376]}NE Day 3 Page 9-10

^{[note: 377]}NE Day 3 Page 9

^{[note: 378]}NE Day 3 Page 10

^{[note: 379]}NE Day 3 Page 62

^{[note: 380]}NE Day 1 Page 53

^{[note: 381]}NE Day 3 Page 73; NE Day 3 Page 74; NE Day 3 Page 33; NE Day 3 Page 35. The Accused had testified that he first noticed the blinkers of the patrol car come on at 3:17:47 of Exhibit P1, which showed footage somewhere at the start of Kampong Java Tunnel. He had stated that he believed that the sirens were also turned on, when the blinkers came on.

^{[note: 382]}NE Day 3 Page 65

^{[note: 383]}NE Day 3 Page 58

^{[note: 384]}NE Day 3 Page 58

^{[note: 385]}NE Day 5 Page 38

^{[note: 386]}NE Day 5 Page 32

^{[note: 387]}NE Day 5 Page 32

^{[note: 388]}See Defence Closing Submissions filed on 6 April 2021

^{[note: 389]}NE Day 3 Page 85

^{[note: 390]}NE Day 3 Page 86

^{[note: 391]}NE Day 3 Page 88, 89

^{[note: 392]}NE Day 2 Page 22, 26

^{[note: 393]}See 00.41 to 00.42 of Exhibit P3

^{[note: 394]}DW2 had testified that the Accused had stopped soon after the tunnel exit but Exhibit P1 and P2 showed that the Accused had stopped his car at the Buyong exit slip road which was a long distance away from the tunnel exit

^{[note: 395]}See Defence’s Mitigation Plea and Submissions on Sentence filed on 22 June 2021

^{[note: 396]}See Exhibit P10