PP v Fernandez: Road Traffic Act - Failure to Stop & Removing Vehicle from Accident Scene
In Public Prosecutor v Fernandez Joseph Ferdinent, the Court of Appeal of Singapore addressed a criminal reference regarding the interpretation of sections 84(1) and 84(4) of the Road Traffic Act. The Public Prosecutor sought clarification on whether failing to stop after an accident and removing a vehicle from the scene of an accident are mutually exclusive offenses. The court held that the offenses are distinct and can both be made out if a driver stops at a distance from the accident scene because they were forced to do so.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
The Court of Appeal answered both questions in the affirmative, finding that the offenses under sections 84(1) and 84(4) of the Road Traffic Act are distinct offenses and both are made out if the driver stops at a distance due to being forced to do so.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal considered whether failing to stop after an accident and removing a vehicle from the scene are mutually exclusive offenses under the Road Traffic Act.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Applicant | Government Agency | Reference answered in the affirmative | Won | Han Ming Kuang of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Fernandez Joseph Ferdinent | Respondent | Individual | Appeal against conviction reinstated | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Sek Keong | Chief Justice | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Han Ming Kuang | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ramesh Chandra | Tan Leroy & Chandra |
4. Facts
- The respondent was driving along the Pan Island Expressway.
- The respondent's car swerved and hit a motorcycle, causing the motorcyclist to be flung off.
- The respondent did not stop after the accident and continued driving.
- A witness chased the respondent and got him to stop about half a kilometer away.
- The motorcyclist sustained multiple fractures and was hospitalized for seven weeks.
- The respondent was charged with offences under sections 65(b), 84(1), 84(3), and 84(4) of the Road Traffic Act.
- The respondent's defense was that he was not aware of any accident.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Fernandez Joseph Ferdinent, Cr Ref 1/2007, [2007] SGCA 34
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Accident occurred on the Pan Island Expressway | |
| Magistrate’s Appeal No 137 of 2006 | |
| Public Prosecutor filed an application pursuant to section 60 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Whether offences under sections 84(1) and 84(4) of the Road Traffic Act are mutually exclusive
- Outcome: The Court held that the offences are distinct and not mutually exclusive.
- Category: Substantive
- Interpretation of 'move' in section 84(4) of the Road Traffic Act
- Outcome: The Court held that 'move' in s 84(4) does not require the vehicle to be initially stationary.
- Category: Substantive
- Whether stopping at a distance satisfies the duty to stop under section 84(1) of the Road Traffic Act
- Outcome: The Court held that stopping at a distance, when forced to do so, does not satisfy the duty to stop under s 84(1).
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Criminal conviction and sentencing
9. Cause of Actions
- Failure to stop after an accident
- Removing a vehicle from the scene of an accident without authority
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Traffic Violations
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fernandez Joseph Ferdinent v PP | High Court | Yes | [2007] SGHC 60 | Singapore | The High Court judge set aside the conviction of the respondent under section 84(4) of the Road Traffic Act, leading to the criminal reference. |
| Hyder v Rex | High Court | Yes | [1949] MLJ 15 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that concurrent sentencing should generally be the norm when two offences arise out of the same facts. |
| PP v Bridges Christopher | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR 162 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court retains a discretion to rephrase a question being posed by an applicant in a criminal reference to clarify questions of law of public interest. |
| Tham Wing Fai Peter v PP | High Court | Yes | [1988] SLR 424 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of 'distinct' offences as 'not identical'. |
| McCormick v Horsepower Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1981] 1 WLR 993 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the court should interpret words and phrases according to their ordinary and most understood sense. |
| Fay v PP | High Court | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 154 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court should interpret words and phrases according to their ordinary and most understood sense. |
| Tee Soon Kay v AG | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] SGCA 27 | Singapore | Cited for the utility of marginal notes generally in statutory interpretation. |
| Constitutional Reference No 1 of 1995 | NA | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR 201 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that any interpretation of a provision should not be made in vacuo and should be done by ensuring that any interpretation adopted does not give leaden feet to the raison d’être of a provision. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 84(1) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 84(4) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 84(3) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 65(b) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 84(7) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 84(5) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 131(2) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 18 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Road Traffic Act
- Hit-and-run
- Mutually exclusive offences
- Distinct offences
- Duty to stop
- Criminal reference
- Statutory interpretation
15.2 Keywords
- Road Traffic Act
- Hit and run
- Criminal Reference
- Singapore Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Road Traffic Act | 90 |
| Road Traffic Law | 80 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 70 |
| Criminal Law | 60 |
| Criminal Revision | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Road Traffic
- Criminal Law
- Statutory Interpretation