Lim Eng Guan Derek v Public Prosecutor: Failure to Provide Breath Specimen & Driving Without Due Care
In Lim Eng Guan Derek v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Lim Eng Guan Derek against his conviction in the District Court for failing to provide a breath specimen without reasonable excuse under s 70(4) of the Road Traffic Act and for driving without due care and attention under s 65 of the same Act. The High Court, led by Chief Justice Yong Pung How, dismissed the appeal, upholding the District Court's decision. The court found no merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the accident, his 'reasonable excuse' for not providing a breath specimen, and the expert evidence presented.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against conviction for failing to provide a breath specimen and driving without due care. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the original conviction.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Judgment for Respondent | Won | Eddy Tham of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Lim Eng Guan Derek | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Eddy Tham | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Irving Choh Thian Chee | Rajah and Tann |
| Adrian Ng | Rajah and Tann |
4. Facts
- Derek's car hit James' motorcycle from behind at a traffic light.
- James observed that Derek's speech was slurred and movements unsteady.
- Derek failed a mobile breathalyser test at the scene.
- Derek failed to provide a sufficient breath specimen for the BEA test at Traffic Police Headquarters.
- Derek claimed to suffer from Acute Stress Disorder, impairing his ability to complete the BEA test.
- A consultant psychiatrist testified that Derek was suffering from Acute Stress Disorder.
- Derek repeatedly asked police officers if they knew who he was.
5. Formal Citations
- Lim Eng Guan Derek v Public Prosecutor, MA 67/2003, [2003] SGHC 303
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Accident occurred involving Derek's car and James Tan Chong Jin's motorcycle. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Failure to Provide Breath Specimen
- Outcome: The court held that the appellant did not have a reasonable excuse for failing to provide a breath specimen.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Reasonable excuse for failure to provide breath specimen
- Sufficiency of breath specimen
- Related Cases:
- [2001] 4 SLR 618
- [1987] RTR 124
- Driving Without Due Care and Attention
- Outcome: The court upheld the conviction for driving without due care and attention.
- Category: Substantive
- Admissibility of Expert Evidence
- Outcome: The court found that the expert evidence was based on flawed facts and gave it little weight.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Reliance on flawed facts
- Contemporaneous assessment
- Related Cases:
- [2001] 3 SLR 1
- [1988] 1 MLJ 348
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Failure to provide breath specimen without reasonable excuse
- Driving without due care and attention
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Madiaalakan s/o Muthusamy v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2001] 4 SLR 618 | Singapore | Cited for the approach to determining 'reasonable excuse' under s 70 of the Road Traffic Act. |
| Yap Giau Beng Terence v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 656 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will be slow to interfere with a judge's assessment of witness credibility. |
| Cotgrove v Cooney | N/A | Yes | [1987] RTR 124 | England and Wales | Cited by the appellant to argue that having tried his best to provide a breath specimen would amount to a reasonable excuse. |
| Saeng-Un Udom v PP | N/A | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court would accept unchallenged expert evidence if it was based on solid grounds and supported by basic facts. |
| Sek Kim Wah v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [1988] 1 MLJ 348 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that the court was entitled to reject expert opinion as it was based on facts which were not consistent with the facts which he had found to be accurate during the trial. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 1997 Rev Ed) s 70(4) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 1997 Rev Ed) s 65 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Breath Evidential Analysis
- Mobile breathalyser
- Reasonable excuse
- Acute Stress Disorder
- Traffic accident
- Due care and attention
15.2 Keywords
- Road Traffic Act
- Breathalyser
- Driving
- Singapore
- Criminal
- Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Road Traffic Act | 95 |
| Road Traffic Law | 80 |
| Drink Driving | 70 |
| Breathalyser Test | 60 |
| Criminal Procedure | 50 |
| Evidence | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Road Traffic
- Criminal Law
- Evidence