Prathib s/o M Balan v Public Prosecutor: Motor Vehicles Act & Road Traffic Act Offences
Prathib s/o M Balan appealed to the High Court of Singapore against the disqualification order imposed by the District Court for offences under the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act and the Road Traffic Act. The District Court had convicted Prathib for permitting his employee to use a motor lorry without a valid insurance policy and a requisite driving license. See Kee Oon J dismissed the appeal on 27 September 2017, finding no special reasons to overturn the disqualification order.
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 disqualification order for permitting employee to drive without insurance and a valid license. Appeal dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prathib s/o M Balan | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Dhanwant Singh |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Upheld | Won | Lee Zu Zhao |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| See Kee Oon | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Dhanwant Singh | SK Kumar Law Practice LLP |
| Lee Zu Zhao | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The appellant was convicted of permitting his employee to use a motor lorry without a valid insurance policy.
- The appellant was also convicted of permitting his employee to drive the lorry without the requisite driving license.
- The District Judge imposed a 12-month disqualification order for the MVA charge.
- The appellant appealed against the disqualification order.
- The appellant argued that 'special reasons' existed to set aside the disqualification order.
- The employee did not possess a Class 4 driving license but had a Class 3 driving license.
- The insurance company initially indicated it would undertake liability in the event of an accident, but later clarified there would be no coverage if the driver was not permitted by law to drive.
5. Formal Citations
- Prathib s/o M Balan v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 8 of 2017, [2017] SGHC 303
- Public Prosecutor v Prathib s/o M. Balan, , [2017] SGDC 161
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Offence committed at Bukit Ho Swee Crescent | |
| Conviction date | |
| Application to the District Judge for a stay of his disqualification order pending appeal | |
| Criminal Motion No 25 of 2017 filed | |
| Criminal Motion granted by Chan Seng Onn J | |
| Appeal dismissed | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Disqualification Order
- Outcome: The court upheld the disqualification order, finding no special reasons to set it aside.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Special reasons for not imposing disqualification
- Interpretation of 'special reasons' under the MVA
- Power to Stay Disqualification Pending Appeal
- Outcome: The court found that it had the power to stay the disqualification order pending appeal.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against disqualification order
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act
- Violation of Road Traffic Act
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Traffic Law
11. Industries
- Transportation
- Logistics
- Insurance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Muhammad Faizal bin Rahim v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 116 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of 'special reasons' under the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act. |
| Ho Chun Kow v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1990] 1 SLR(R) 575 | Singapore | Cited for the argument that a distinction should be recognized between a person who drives and a person who permits another person to drive. |
| Toh Yong Soon v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 147 | Singapore | Cited to demonstrate that s 3(1) of the MVA applies equally to punish those who drive and those who cause or permit another to drive without insurance coverage. |
| Siti Hajar bte Abdullah v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 248 | Singapore | Cited to demonstrate that s 3(1) of the MVA applies equally to punish those who drive and those who cause or permit another to drive without insurance coverage, with 12-month disqualification terms. |
| Stewart Ashley James v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR(R) 106 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that disqualification will normally be ordered upon conviction unless there are 'special reasons'. |
| M V Balakrishnan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 846 | Singapore | Cited to clarify that legislation providing that the court shall impose disqualification unless 'special reasons' exist does not remove the court’s discretion. |
| Sivakumar s/o Rajoo v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 265 | Singapore | Cited for the observation that even if 'special reasons' are established, the court may still make a disqualification order. |
| Chua Chye Tiong v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2004] 1 SLR(R) 22 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the offender had some form of control, direction, and mandate over the person to prevent him from using the vehicle unlawfully. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Fuad Bin Abdul Samad | District Court | Yes | [2014] SGDC 178 | Singapore | Cited to show that the fact that the offender caused someone who had a driving licence and was qualified to drive, when he was supposed to be covered by the insurance policy but was not as he had less than two years of driving experience, was not a 'special reason'. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chen Horng Yeh David | District Court | Yes | [2007] SGDC 326 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the fact that the insurance company would undertake liability in the event of an accident is a 'special reason'. |
| Knowler v Rennison | High Court | Yes | [1947] 1 KB 488 | England and Wales | Cited with approval in Siti Hajar bte Abdullah at [19], the accused was convicted under s 35(1) of the UK Road Traffic Act 1930 (Cap 43) (“UKRTA”) (in pari materia with s 3(1) of the MVA) for causing his motorcycle to be used without a policy of insurance. |
| Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Haidhir Bin Raub | District Court | Yes | [2016] SGDC 19 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that s 42(4) of the RTA provides the court with the discretion to suspend the operation of a disqualification order pending an appeal, and it was implicitly accepted that the power of stay also applies to disqualification ordered under s 3(3) of the MVA. |
| Public Prosecutor v Xu Feng Jia | District Court | Yes | [2016] SGDC 160 | Singapore | Cited as a case where a stay of disqualification ordered under s 3(3) of the MVA pending appeal was also granted. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chia Hong Quan | District Court | Yes | [2015] SGDC 33 | Singapore | Cited as a case where a stay of disqualification ordered under s 3(3) of the MVA pending appeal was also granted. |
| Public Prosecutor v Aw Yick Hong | District Court | Yes | [2014] SGDC 275 | Singapore | Cited as a case where a stay of disqualification ordered under s 3(3) of the MVA pending appeal was also granted. |
| Public Prosecutor v Viswamoorthy s/o Ramanthan | District Court | Yes | [2009] SGDC 243 | Singapore | Cited as a case where a stay of disqualification ordered under s 3(3) of the MVA pending appeal was also granted. |
| Public Prosecutor v Edmund Wang Choon Teck | District Court | Yes | [2009] SGDC 178 | Singapore | Cited as a case where a stay of disqualification ordered under s 3(3) of the MVA pending appeal was also granted. |
| Chua Chye Tiong v Public Prosecutor | District Court | Yes | [2003] SGDC 188 | Singapore | Cited as a case where a stay of disqualification ordered under s 3(3) of the MVA pending appeal was also granted. |
| Rajendar Prasad Rai and another v Public Prosecutor and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 187 | Singapore | Cited for the principle to avoid undue prejudice to an accused person where an earlier order or sentence may be revised. |
| Bander Yahya A Alzahrani v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 287 | Singapore | Cited for the principle to avoid undue prejudice to an accused person where an earlier order or sentence may be revised. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ho Soo Hiam | District Court | Yes | [2015] SGDC 18 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a disqualification order under the RTA was stayed under s 383(1) of the CPC pending appeal, and the operation of the order was also suspended under s 42(4) of the RTA pending appeal. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 3(3) of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 42(4) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 383(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act
- Road Traffic Act
- Disqualification order
- Special reasons
- Permitting use of vehicle
- Insurance policy
- Driving license
- Stay of execution
- Mandatory minimum disqualification
15.2 Keywords
- Motor Vehicles Act
- Road Traffic Act
- Disqualification
- Driving without insurance
- Driving without license
- Singapore
- Criminal Appeal
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Transportation Law
- Insurance Law
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Statutory Offences
- Motor Vehicles Law
- Road Traffic Law