Tham Saik Mun Simon v Public Prosecutor: Drink-Driving & Bonjela Gel Defence
Tham Saik Mun Simon appealed to the General Division of the High Court against his conviction and sentence in the District Court for a drink-driving offence under section 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act. The primary legal issue was whether the Appellant successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under section 71A(1) of the Road Traffic Act, arguing that his elevated breath alcohol levels were due to post-driving application of Bonjela gel. Vincent Hoong J dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 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 drink-driving was dismissed. The court found the Bonjela gel defense did not rebut statutory presumption.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Gregory Gan of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tham Saik Mun, Simon | 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 |
|---|---|
| Gregory Gan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Wen Cheng Adrian | August Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- The Appellant was charged with drink-driving on 14 June 2019.
- The Appellant's breath alcohol content was 75µg/100ml, exceeding the prescribed limit of 35µg/100ml.
- The Appellant claimed he applied Bonjela gel after driving, which affected the breathalyser test result.
- The District Judge convicted the Appellant, rejecting the Bonjela gel defence.
- The Appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence.
- The Prosecution argued the Appellant failed to prove the Bonjela gel caused the elevated alcohol level.
- The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence.
5. Formal Citations
- Tham Saik Mun Simon v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9163 of 2022, [2023] SGHC 179
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant drove a motor van at an open-air carpark | |
| Complainant called the police reporting a drunk driver | |
| Appellant subjected to a breathalyser test, which he failed | |
| Appellant arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol | |
| Breathalyser test conducted at Woodlands Police Division HQ showing 75µg/100ml | |
| Investigation Officer recorded statement from the Appellant | |
| Trial began | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Drink-Driving
- Outcome: The court held that the Appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption that his breath alcohol level at the time of driving exceeded the prescribed limit.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Exceeding prescribed alcohol limit
- Rebuttal of statutory presumption
- Related Cases:
- [2023] SGDC 15
- Statutory Interpretation
- Outcome: The court clarified the application of the statutory presumption under s 71A(1) and the exception under s 71A(2) of the Road Traffic Act.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Application of statutory presumptions
- Burden of proof
- Related Cases:
- [2011] 1 SLR 767
- [2010] 1 SLR 719
- Admissibility of Expert Evidence
- Outcome: The court assessed the admissibility and weight of expert evidence regarding the functionality of the breathalyser machine and the effects of Bonjela gel on breath alcohol levels.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Weight of expert testimony
- Scope of expertise
- Related Cases:
- [2022] 1 SLR 1240
- [2021] 1 SLR 67
- [2018] 2 SLR 249
- [2007] 2 SLR(R) 983
- [2001] 2 SLR(R) 1
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Driving under the influence of alcohol
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Traffic Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Legal
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v GCK and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 486 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Prosecution bears the legal burden of proving each and every element of the offence charged beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Punithan a/l Genasan v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] 1 SLR 199 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Prosecution bears the legal burden of proving each and every element of the offence charged beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Public Prosecutor v Wan Yue Kong and others | High Court | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR(R) 83 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if the Prosecution invokes a statutory presumption, as an evidentiary aid, it first bears the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, the factual pre-requisite(s) for triggering the presumption in question. |
| Public Prosecutor v Rangasamy Subramaniam | High Court | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 767 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that for the assumption in s 71A(1) to apply, the Prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Accused had in fact driven a motor vehicle at the time of the offence. |
| Rangasamy Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 719 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the s 71A(1) statutory assumption is not rebuttable except by way of the exception in s 71A(2). |
| Jagatheesan s/o Krishnasamy v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 45 | Singapore | Cited for the appellate standard of review applicable to findings of fact in the first-instance, viz, that an appellate court may not overturn a DJ’s findings of fact unless they are plainly wrong or against the weight of the evidence |
| Teo Ghim Heng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 1240 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court should examine the underlying evidence and the analytical process by which the expert’s conclusions are reached. |
| Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 67 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court should judge the cogency of the expert's logic. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chia Kee Chen | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 249 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the expert should provide an explanation of the reasoning behind her conclusions. |
| Sakthivel Punithavathi v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 983 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where such expert evidence was based on sound grounds and supported by basic facts, the court would not be in a position to substitute its own views for that of an uncontradicted expert’s |
| Saeng-Un Udom v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where expert evidence is uncontradicted, falls within that witness’s expertise, is based on sound grounds, is not contradicted by extrinsic evidence, and is not otherwise lacking in its defensibility, the court should not venture to substitute its own views on a matter of expert opinion for that of the expert witness |
| Public Prosecutor v Tham Saik Mun Simon | District Court | Yes | [2023] SGDC 15 | Singapore | The decision below, where the DJ convicted the Appellant on the Drink-Driving Charge. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 67(1)(b) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act s 72(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act s 71A(1) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act s 71A(2) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 267(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Drink-driving
- Breath alcohol concentration
- Bonjela gel
- Statutory presumption
- Breathalyser test
- Mouth alcohol
- Breath alcohol
- Dräger Alcotest 9510 SG
- Expert evidence
- Burden of proof
15.2 Keywords
- Drink driving
- Bonjela
- Alcohol
- Road Traffic Act
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
- Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Road Traffic Act | 95 |
| Statutory offences | 80 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Sentencing Appeals | 60 |
| Appeal | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Road Traffic
- Evidence
- Sentencing