Sulaiman bin Mohd Hassan v Public Prosecutor: Plying for Hire & Motor Vehicle Insurance
In Sulaiman bin Mohd Hassan v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore dismissed Sulaiman bin Mohd Hassan's appeal against his conviction by the District Judge for using a chauffeured private hire car as a taxi and for using a motor vehicle without valid third-party insurance, in contravention of the Road Traffic Act and the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act. The court found that Sulaiman had plied for hire by picking up passengers without a prior booking and that his insurance policy did not cover the use of the vehicle as a taxi. The court upheld the original sentence, including a fine and a disqualification order.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the 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
Sulaiman bin Mohd Hassan was convicted for using a private hire car as a taxi without a proper license and insurance. The appeal was dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sulaiman bin Mohd Hassan | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Mohammad Shafiq bin Haja Maideen, Raheja binte Jamaludin |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Judgment for Respondent | Won | Suhas Malhotra, Lee Wei Liang |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Mohammad Shafiq bin Haja Maideen | Abdul Rahman Law Corporation |
| Raheja binte Jamaludin | Abdul Rahman Law Corporation |
| Suhas Malhotra | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lee Wei Liang | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Appellant used a private hire car to ferry passengers from Marina Bay Sands Hotel to Four Seasons Hotel.
- The passengers were picked up without a prior booking.
- The appellant agreed on a fare of $50 for the trip.
- The vehicle was licensed as a chauffeured private hire car, not a taxi.
- The insurance policy for the vehicle excluded rental for use as a taxi service.
- The appellant was aware that private hire cars were not supposed to pick up passengers without a booking.
5. Formal Citations
- Sulaiman bin Mohd Hassan v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9693 of 2020, [2021] SGHC 132
- Public Prosecutor v Sulaiman bin Mohd Hassan, , [2020] SGMC 46
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant used vehicle as taxi | |
| Appellant gave statement to Land Transport Authority | |
| District Judge's decision in Public Prosecutor v Sulaiman bin Mohd Hassan [2020] SGMC 46 | |
| Appeal heard | |
| Grounds of Decision issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Plying for Hire
- Outcome: The court held that the appellant was plying for hire.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Absence of prior booking
- Solicitation of customers
- Use of vehicle as taxi
- Use of Motor Vehicle Without Valid Insurance
- Outcome: The court held that the appellant used the vehicle without valid insurance.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Scope of insurance policy
- Exclusion of taxi services
- Third-party risks
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of Road Traffic Act
- Violation of Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Transportation Law
11. Industries
- Transportation
- Insurance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Sulaiman bin Mohd Hassan | District Court | Yes | [2020] SGMC 46 | Singapore | The present appeal is against the decision of the District Judge in this case. |
| Reading Borough Council v Ali | English High Court | Yes | [2019] 1 WLR 2635 | England | Cited for the test of whether a vehicle had plied for hire. |
| Gilbert v McKay | Unknown | Yes | [1946] 1 All ER 458 | England | Cited for the principle that the question of whether a vehicle was “plying for hire” was ultimately one of fact. |
| Cogley v Sherwood | Queen’s Bench Division | Yes | [1959] 2 QB 311 | England | Cited for the test of when a vehicle is plying for hire. |
| Rose v Welbeck Motors Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [1962] 2 All ER 801 | England | Cited for the test of when a vehicle is plying for hire. |
| Nottingham City Council v Woodings | Unknown | Yes | [1994] RTR 72 | England | Cited for the test of when a vehicle is plying for hire. |
| Muhammad Faizal bin Rahim v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 116 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there were no “special reasons” that warranted non-imposition of the disqualification. |
| Prathib s/o M Balan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2018] 3 SLR 1066 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there were no “special reasons” that warranted non-imposition of the disqualification. |
| Public Prosecutor v Teo Rong Zhi Saimonn | High Court | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 962 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that s 9(1) of the MVA did not apply where a policy did not cover a certain mode of use of the vehicle in the first place and that even if s 9(1) MVA applied to provide insurance cover to an injured third-party, the criminal liability of the user of the vehicle under s 3(1) MVA was unaffected. |
| Lim Cheng Wai v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1988] SGHC 68 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that s 3(1) of the MVA required the policy in question to cover specific uses of the vehicle. |
| Public Prosecutor v Loh Kum San | District Court | Yes | [2019] SGDC 79 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where the private hire car displayed “taxi” signs prominently. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 101(1) | Singapore |
| Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Rev Ed) s 3(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Malaysian Road Transport Act 1987 s 95 | Malaysia |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Plying for hire
- Private hire car
- Taxi
- Third-party risks
- Insurance policy
- Prior booking
- Disqualification order
15.2 Keywords
- Plying for hire
- Private hire
- Taxi
- Insurance
- Road Traffic Act
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Transportation Law
- Criminal Law
- Insurance Law
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Road Traffic Law
- Insurance Law