Khua Kian Keong v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Drink Driving Conviction Allowed
Khua Kian Keong and Pang Ee-Zian appealed against their convictions under the Road Traffic Act for drink driving. The High Court, presided over by Chief Justice Yong Pung How, allowed the appeals on 15 October 2003, citing inconsistencies and improbabilities in the sole prosecution witness's testimony. The court found that the prosecution's case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeals against conviction allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Khua Kian Keong and Pang Ee-Zian appeal drink driving convictions. The High Court allowed the appeals, citing inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Eddy Tham of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Khua Kian Keong | Appellant | Individual | Appeal allowed | Won | |
| Pang Ee-Zian | Appellant | Individual | Appeal allowed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Eddy Tham | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| N Sreenivasan | Straits Law Practice LLC |
| Thangavelu | Rajah Velu & Co |
4. Facts
- Khua was charged under s 67(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act for driving under the influence of drink.
- Pang was charged under s 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act for driving with alcohol exceeding the prescribed limit.
- Senior Staff Sergeant Sairi testified that he saw the appellants' car make a sudden turn into a bus bay.
- Sairi claimed the appellants switched seats after being stopped at the road block.
- Khua's breath analyser test result was 32 micrograms per 100 millilitre of breath.
- Pang's breath analyser test result was 52 micrograms per 100 millilitre of breath.
- The appellants claimed Khua was not in a drunken state and Pang was supposed to drive.
5. Formal Citations
- Khua Kian Keong and Another v Public Prosecutor, MA 20/2003, 21/2003, [2003] SGHC 238
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Alleged drink driving incident occurred | |
| Appeals against conviction allowed |
7. Legal Issues
- Whether to interfere with inferences drawn by trial judge
- Outcome: The court held that the inferences drawn by the trial judge were incorrect and led to convictions against the weight of the evidence.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2001] 2 SLR 474
- [2003] 1 SLR 426
- [2000] 3 SLR 439
- [2002] 4 SLR 289
- [2003] 1 SLR 145
- Whether undue weight was given to sole prosecution witness
- Outcome: The court found that undue weight was given to the sole prosecution witness's testimony, which contained inconsistencies and improbabilities.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2002] 4 SLR 14
- Whether an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution for failure to offer other witnesses to the defense
- Outcome: The court held that an adverse inference should not be drawn against the prosecution because the other police officers were not material or essential witnesses.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1999] 2 SLR 637
- [1996] 1 SLR 510
- [2002] 4 SLR 523
- [1998] 1 SLR 663
- [2003] 1 SLR 617
- [2001] 1 SLR 146
- [1999] 4 SLR 264
- [1995] 2 SLR 767
- [1994] 2 SLR 257
- [1998] 3 SLR 517
- Whether the appellants were guilty of drink driving
- Outcome: The court found that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants were guilty of drink driving.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2002] 2 SLR 73
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of Section 67(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act
- Violation of Section 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
- Traffic Violations
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ang Jwee Herng v PP | Unknown | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR 474 | Singapore | Cited regarding the approach to be adopted by an appellate court when overturning findings of fact by the trial judge. |
| PP v Hendricks Glen Conelth | Unknown | Yes | [2003] 1 SLR 426 | Singapore | Cited regarding the approach to be adopted by an appellate court when overturning findings of fact by the trial judge. |
| Awtar Singh s/o Margar Singh v PP | Unknown | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR 439 | Singapore | Cited regarding the appellate court's position to assess inferences drawn from the content of evidence. |
| Bala Murugan a/l Krishnan & Anor v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 4 SLR 289 | Singapore | Cited regarding justification for appellate intervention when inferences drawn by the trial court are not supported by primary facts. |
| Sahadevan s/o Gundan v PP | Unknown | Yes | [2003] 1 SLR 145 | Singapore | Cited regarding the appellate court's freedom to form an independent opinion about the proper inference to be drawn from a finding of fact. |
| Low Lin Lin v PP | Unknown | Yes | [2002] 4 SLR 14 | Singapore | Cited regarding the possibility of a conviction based on the testimony of one witness alone. |
| Ang Kah Kee v PP | Unknown | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR 104 | Singapore | Cited regarding reasonable doubt being cast over the prosecution's case by pointing to inherent flaws or improbabilities in its logic and evidence. |
| Soh Yang Tick v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 42 | Singapore | Cited regarding the fact that witnesses are related to the appellant does not render their testimonies suspect. |
| Satli bin Masot v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR 637 | Singapore | Cited regarding when an adverse inference can be drawn when the prosecution fails to call certain witnesses, or fails to offer them to the defence. |
| Chua Keem Long v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR 510 | Singapore | Cited regarding the discretionary and not a mandatory inference. |
| Chia Sze Chang v PP | Unknown | Yes | [2002] 4 SLR 523 | Singapore | Cited regarding the discretionary and not a mandatory inference. |
| Lau Song Seng & Ors v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR 663 | Singapore | Cited regarding the witness not offered was a material one. |
| Amir Hamzah bin Berang Kuty v PP | Unknown | Yes | [2003] 1 SLR 617 | Singapore | Cited regarding the prosecution was withholding evidence which it possessed and which was available. |
| Wong Leong Chin v PP | Unknown | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR 146 | Singapore | Cited regarding this was done with an ulterior motive to hinder or hamper the defence. |
| R Yoganathan v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 264 | Singapore | Cited regarding the witnesses called sufficiently established the prosecution’s case so that any other witnesses were not essential. |
| Khoo Kwoon Hain v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR 767 | Singapore | Cited regarding the victim of a sexual offence had testified about complaining to her aunt, but the prosecution failed to identify this aunt or call her as witness to corroborate the victim’s account. |
| Lim Young Sien v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 257 | Singapore | Cited regarding the law is well settled that, in a criminal case, the prosecution has a discretion whether or not to call a particular witness, provided that there is no ulterior motive, and the witness, who is available to, but not called by, the prosecution, is offered to the defence. |
| Roy S Selvarajah v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 517 | Singapore | Cited regarding the defence knew about these witnesses and could have reminded the prosecution to identify and offer them. |
| Sivakumar s/o Rajoo v PP | Unknown | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR 73 | Singapore | Cited regarding a motor car in the hands of an inebriated person is a potentially devastating weapon. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 1997 Rev Ed) ss 67(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 1997 Rev Ed) ss 67(1)(b) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 116 illustration (g) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Drink driving
- Road block
- Breath analyser test
- Switching seats
- Reasonable doubt
- Adverse inference
- Material witness
15.2 Keywords
- Drink driving
- Appeal
- Conviction
- Road Traffic Act
- Evidence
- Witness
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Road Traffic Act | 90 |
| Drink Driving | 90 |
| Evidence | 80 |
| Offences | 80 |
| Adverse inferences | 70 |
| Witnesses | 70 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Appeal | 60 |
| Burden of proof | 60 |
| Sentencing Framework | 60 |
| Sentencing Appeals | 60 |
| Admissibility of evidence | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Road Traffic Law
- Evidence Law