Sheik Parvez v Public Prosecutor: Driving Under Disqualification & Without Insurance
Sheik Parvez Zunuas Bin Shaik Raheem appealed to the General Division of the High Court against the sentences and disqualification orders imposed by the District Judge for charges under s 43(4) of the Road Traffic Act for driving while under a disqualification order and s 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act for using a motor car without insurance. The High Court, presided over by Justice Vincent Hoong, dismissed the appeal, upholding the original sentences and disqualification orders.
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
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against sentences for driving under disqualification and without insurance. Appeal dismissed; sentences and disqualification orders upheld.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Benedict Teong of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sheik Parvez Zunuas Bin Shaik Raheem | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Vincent Hoong | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Benedict Teong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Rajwin Singh Sandhu | Rajwin & Yong LLP |
4. Facts
- Appellant pleaded guilty to driving under disqualification and without insurance.
- Appellant was previously disqualified from driving for 24 months from 10 October 2019.
- Appellant was found driving on 13 October 2019 while disqualified.
- Appellant claimed he mistakenly believed he had seven more days to drive.
- District Judge rejected the appellant's claim of mistaken belief.
- The High Court found the appellant's claim of mistaken belief untenable.
5. Formal Citations
- Sheik Parvez Zunuas bin Shaik Raheem v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9246 of 2021, [2022] SGHC 138
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant convicted of driving with alcohol exceeding prescribed limit and disqualified for 24 months. | |
| Appellant found driving under disqualification. | |
| Mention in court. | |
| Appellant's application to make further representations rejected. | |
| Sentencing adjourned. | |
| Sentencing occurred; disqualification order imposed for Motor Vehicles Act charge. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Driving Under Disqualification
- Outcome: The court upheld the sentence and disqualification order for driving under disqualification.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 2 SLR 1028
- Driving Without Insurance
- Outcome: The court upheld the sentence and disqualification order for driving without insurance.
- Category: Substantive
- Mistaken Belief as Mitigating Factor
- Outcome: The court rejected the appellant's claim of mistaken belief as a mitigating factor.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 2 SLR 1028
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against sentences and disqualification orders
9. Cause of Actions
- Driving Under Disqualification
- Using a Motor Vehicle Without Insurance
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Traffic Law
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Sheikh Parvez Zunuas bin Shaik Raheem | District Court | Yes | [2021] SGDC 256 | Singapore | Cited as the District Judge's grounds of decision in the case. |
| Sukla Lalatendu v Public Prosecutor and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 1183 | Singapore | Cited regarding allegations of impropriety against judicial officers. |
| Ng Chun Hian v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 783 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a Newton hearing is the exception rather than the norm. |
| Muhammad Saiful bin Ismail v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 1028 | Singapore | Cited regarding the mitigating factor of an offender being unaware of a disqualification order and the commencement date of disqualification orders. |
| Prathib s/o M Balan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2018] 3 SLR 1066 | Singapore | Cited regarding special reasons for reducing the disqualification period under s 3(1) MVA. |
| Fam Shey Yee v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2012] SGHC 134 | Singapore | Cited regarding the usual sentencing tariff for s 43(4) offence. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 43(4) | Singapore |
| Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Rev Ed) s 3(1) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act s 67(1)(b) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act s 116 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act s 45A | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Disqualification Order
- Road Traffic Act
- Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act
- Mistaken Belief
- Newton Hearing
- Sentencing
- Mitigating Factor
15.2 Keywords
- driving under disqualification
- driving without insurance
- road traffic act
- motor vehicles act
- singapore
- criminal law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Road Traffic Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Statutory offences | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Sentencing Principles | 90 |
| Automobile Accidents | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Road Traffic Offences
- Sentencing