Friday, 31 July 2009
Wednesday, 15 July 2009
Taxi drivers fined
http://lwb.lawnet.com.sg/legal/lgl/rss/subcourts/62040.html
| Public Prosecutor v Loh Eng Keong [2009] SGDC 156 |
| LTA 30828062751, MA 38/2009 | |
| 15 May 2009 | |
| District Court | |
| Salina Bte Ishak | |
| Lua Bee Hin, Prosecuting Officer for the LTA, Loh Eng Keong acting in person |
Judgment
15 May 2009 |
|
District Judge Salina Ishak:
The Charge
1. The Accused had claimed trial to two charges, namely:
i) failing to behave in a civil and orderly manner towards a passenger
and
ii) failing to take all reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of a passenger in his taxi
contrary to Rules 21(a) and 21(b) of the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles, Vocational Licences and Conduct of Drivers, Conductors and Passengers) Rules.
2. The charges against the Accused are as follows:
LTA No 3082806275 (“Exhibit C1A”)
AMENDED 1ST CHARGE
You,
LOH ENG KEONG, MALE
AGE: 40 years old (DOB: 20.6.1968)
NRIC NO: S6823526Z
are charged that you, on 11.3.2008 at about 7.54 am for the journey from Marine Parade Road to Capital Tower, Robinson Road, being a licensee when acting as driver of motor taxi No. SHC 8018 L, which was to be hired out for the conveyance of passengers for the purpose of gain, did fail to behave in a civil and orderly manner, to wit, behave in a rude manner and shouting at your passenger, one Moong Shin Yi, in contravention of Rule 21(a) of the said Rules and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 131(1) and punishable under Section 131(2) of the Road Traffic Act, Chapter 276.
LTA No 3082806275 (“Exhibit C2A”)
AMENDED 2ND CHARGE
You,
LOH ENG KEONG, MALE
AGE: 40 years old (DOB: 20.6.1968)
NRIC NO: S6823526Z
are charged that you, on 11.3.2008 at about 7.54 am for the journey from Marine Parade Road to Capital Tower, Robinson Road, being a licensee when acting as driver of motor taxi No. SHC 8018 L, which was to be hired out for the conveyance of passengers for the purpose of gain, did fail to take all reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of passenger in your taxi, to wit, driving your taxi recklessly, weaving in and out of traffic and braking abruptly, in contravention of Rule 21(b) of the said Rules and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 131(1) and punishable under Section 131(2) of the Road Traffic Act, Chapter 276.
3. Under the Vocational Licence Points System (“VLPS”) a framework for investigation of complaints and discipline of taxi drivers who breach the rules of conduct implemented in June 2003, both the offences are compoundable upon payment of $50 for each offence (Total: $100) without any accompanying vocational demerit points. The system implemented by the Land Transport Authority (“LTA”) is intended to ensure that taxi companies play a greater role in the discipline of their drivers, to educate and encourage their drivers to provide good customer service. The Accused, nonetheless, had claimed trial to both charges as he intended to prove his innocence.
The Trial
“PW 1” – Dr Siew Wai Leen
4. The first witness for the prosecution was PW 1, Dr Siew Wai Leen, a doctor from the Raffles Medical Group and stationed at Capital Tower. On 11 March at 11.40 am, she testified that she treated a patient, Moong Shin Yi (PW 2) who had complained of giddiness, nausea and bloatedness as a result of the taxi ride she took from her home to her office. PW 1 did a full examination of PW 2 and concluded that the patient most likely had a bout of motion sickness as a result of the taxi ride she had taken in the morning. She prescribed some medication to stop the nausea and giddiness and subsequently provided a medical note (“Exhibit P1”) in support of her testimony. She also identified PW 2(Ms Moong Shin Yi) as the patient.
5. The Accused elected not to cross-examine PW 1 on her testimony.
“PW 2” – Moong Shin Yi
6. The next witness for the prosecution was PW 2, Moong Shin Yi (also known as “Catherine Moong”), an Investment Analyst for JP Morgan Asset Management. On 11 March 2008, PW 1 testified she boarded a taxi together with her husband PW 3, Lee Kwet Chee from their condominium at Cote A’zur. They had intended to firstly to go to 1 Fullerton and subsequently to Capital Tower at Robinson Road. She gave evidence that the ‘Mercedes cab’ in question had pulled up and the driver asked her husband where they were going. Her husband told the driver that they were going to the CBD and then Tanjong Pagar. The driver gestured for both PW 2 and her husband to enter the taxi and he switched on the taxi meter.
7. PW 2 testified that the driver went on to take the East Coast Park Expressway (“ECP”) to their destination. She testified that the driver drove aggressively and was changing lanes without signaling as he drove in and out of the lanes. At times, he would apply the emergency brakes. Somewhere along the journey, the driver informed them that he needed to go to Tanjong Pagar first before Fullerton. PW 2 gave evidence that her husband corrected him and said it was 1 Fullerton and not Fullerton Hotel and was on the way. She further gave evidence that as the driver was driving very fast down the slip road to the Rochor Road exit, the driver was not able to proceed to 1 Fullerton via Suntec City and had to enter via Beach Road instead. PW 2 testified that the driver sped off to 1 Fullerton and her husband the alighted. Soon after her husband alighted, the driver suddenly shouted to PW 2 in a loud voice “Where are you going?” PW 2 told him Capital Tower at Robinson Road to which the driver responded that he did not know the way. PW 2 then told him that she would give directions to her destination.
8. PW 2 testified that for the journey from 1 Fullerton to Capital Tower, the driver drove more aggressively than ever. He switched lanes without signaling and applied his brakes abruptly. PW 2 further testified of a near collision between the taxi she was in and a car which occurred near the DBS building as the taxi driver made a right turn. The driver of the car horned at the taxi driver but the latter continued to switch lanes. PW 2 was intimidated throughout the whole journey. She was afraid but was glad when she arrived at Capital Tower. She then asked the driver for his name, his plate number and a receipt. She indicated that she intended to raise the incident to the taxi company. The driver turned around and threw the receipt at her. The receipt did not hit PW 2 but landed on the left side of the passenger seat. As PW 2 was frightened, she picked up the receipt (“Exhibit P2”) and alighted from the taxi as fast as she could and walked towards the building. As she walked, she heard shouting and words spoken behind her although she was unable to make out what the driver said.
9. PW 2 felt giddy and nauseous after the ride but thought the feeling would go away after half and hour or one hour. Nevertheless, as the symptoms did not subside, before 12 noon on that day, she saw a doctor (PW 1) at the Raffles Medical clinic. She testified that some medication were prescribed to her as the doctor thought that the giddiness, nausea and slight bloatedness might be due to the taxi ride she had earlier in the morning. PW 2 testified that the cost of the journey was $14.90 and that she had taken a Mercedes limousine belonging to Comfort Delgro bearing registration number SHC 8018 L. She further testified that she filed a complaint with Comfort Delgro (“Exhibit P3”) and copied the complaint to the Land Transport Authority (“Exhibit P4”). PW 2 gave evidence that she did not have a clear look at the driver as she had sat behind him. Further, as he had shouted at her, she felt intimidated and did not dare to look at him. Prior to the incident, she and her husband had been commuting to work via taxi every morning and had worked at Capital Tower since October 2005.
10. During cross-examination, the Accused asked PW 2 why she had not asked him to slow down or to drive slower if he was really speeding. PW 2 responded that as he was agitated in the manner he was driving and was aggressive, she felt it would not be a good idea to further anger a man in such a situation. Further, she had thought that the journey is short and did not feel that the journey would cause her great illness or motion sickness thereafter. When the Accused emphasized that no one could speed at that hour especially with a speed camera, PW 2 responded that the traffic on the morning of the incident was average rather than bumper to bumper and that the was changing lanes very aggressively. At times when the traffic was smoother in a particular lane, PW 2 testified that the Accused had sped.
11. During cross-examination, when the Accused alleged that PW 2 told him that she knew his company CEO and that she would cause him to be out of a job, PW 2 denied his allegation and asserted that the Accused had shouted at her the moment her husband had alighted from the taxi. She clarified that she had told him that she would raise the issue with the company. When asked by the Accused where PW 2 had said her destination was, PW 2 had responded that it was Capital Tower, Robinson Road. When it was put to her that she had lied in her testimony regarding her destination as Capital Towers, PW 2 disagreed as she had clearly said Capital Tower, Robinson Road. She further testified that as they (PW 2 and PW 3) took a taxi to work daily, this is what she would always say. She added that even so, Capital Tower is located at Tanjong Pagar MRT.
12. When the Accused stated that he did not have any grudges and had no reason to intimidate her, PW 2 responded that she agreed that he should not have any grudges against them. That was why they were shocked when the Accused behaved so rudely. PW 2 testified that they i.e. PW 2 and PW 3 had tried to think if they had angered him along the way but they clearly had not besides giving him instructions. When the Accused stated that PW 2 was trying to find fault with him as she should have asked him to stop the vehicle and get down if she felt sick or unsafe, PW 2 responded that she did not know the Accused and had no reason to find fault with him. If she believed that the Accused was endangering their lives, his own life and the lives of others, she should raise the matter to the authorities.
“PW 3” – Lim Kwet Chee
13. The next witness for the prosecution was PW 3, Lee Kwet Chee, a private banker with Hong Kong & Shanghai Bank and PW 2’s husband. He testified that on 11 March 2008, at about 7.54 am, he took a taxi together with his wife, PW 2 as it was a normal practice for them to catch a taxi to the office. A white Mercedes limousine taxi had pulled over and the driver had asked where they had wanted to go. PW 3 was surprised with the question as there was no ‘Change in Shift’ sign on the cab but quickly informed the driver that he was going to the Central Business District (CBD). When asked further where in CBD was his destination, PW 3 testified that he stated he wanted to firstly go to 1 Fullerton and then to Tanjong Pagar.
14. Shortly after, during the journey, PW 3 testified that the driver told them that he needed to make a U-turn if he was going to Tanjong Pagar subsequently. PW 3 told the driver that he was not going to Fullerton Hotel but to 1 Fullerton so it was along the way. PW 3 advised the driver to take the ECP as it was his normal practice. Shortly after getting onto the highway i.e. ECP, PW 3 testified that the driver was driving very fast. He changed lanes very quickly while weaving in and out of traffic. When PW 3 was asked if he wanted to exit at Rochor, PW 3 agreed to his suggestion and asked the driver to enter via ‘Suntec and come out at the Esplanade’ which is his usual practice. PW 3 testified that the driver exited at Rochor but was taking the turn very fast in the furthermost right lane. As he was unable to filter back towards the Suntec area, he went straight on to Beach Road and dropped PW 3 off at 1 Fullerton. PW 3 then walked to work while his wife PW 2 continued with the journey.
15. While he was at work, PW 3 received a call from his wife. She complained that the taxi driver was agitated and had shouted at her. She was afraid and had explained what had happened along the way to her workplace after dropping him off. When PW 3 asked if she was alright, she responded that she was alright but shaken. PW 2 informed him that the driver had continued to drive very fast and recklessly. At one point, he had almost collided with a car near the DBS bank. When she had asked for his particulars upon her arrival at the destination, the driver had thrown the receipt at her stating that his name and number plate was on the receipt. PW 2 further told him that she paid the fare, quickly took the receipt and left the taxi. As she was walking away, she could hear shouting from the taxi driver. PW 2 did not turn back as she was afraid and quickly went to the office. After discussing the matter, PW 3 testified that his wife wanted to write a complaint email to the taxi company stating the events. An hour or two later, PW 2 informed him that she had made an appointment with the doctor as she felt unwell.
16. PW 3 testified that this was not the first time he had taken a taxi to work. He had been commuting by taxi for the past few months and every morning would commute with his wife by taxi to work. When they take a taxi to work, he would ask to be dropped off first. This was the first time he had encountered this experience. He further testified that he had only seen the back of the taxi driver’s head and had not seen his face in full.
17. During cross-examination when it was suggested by the Accused that they had boarded his taxi at 7.30 to 7.35 am, PW 3 maintained that he had flagged the taxi at 5 minutes before 8 am as stated earlier. The Accused further stated if PW 3 knew that his wife had motion sickness from Marine Parade to 1 Fullerton, he did not inform the driver ‘to please drive slower and safely’. PW 3 responded that he believed any taxi driver should have the responsibility and common sense to drive safely at all times. When it was suggested by the Accused that he was not speeding as there were speed trap cameras at the ECP, PW 3 disagreed with his suggestion.
18. When asked to confirm his instructions as he boarded the taxi, PW 3 confirmed that he had said 1 Fullerton and Tanjong Pagar. During his cross-examination on the journey along Shenton Way, the Accused suggested as the distance between one traffic light to another traffic light is at most 150 to 200 metres, it was not possible for him to be speeding. PW 3 responded that his estimation of the distance was inaccurate and cited the example of the traffic light from Lau Pa Sat to the DBS Building as being more than 150 to 200 metres apart. When it was put to him by the Accused that he had not collided with the car as alleged, PW 3 responded that he was not present in the taxi at that point in time.
19. When PW 3 was asked at what speed the Accused was speeding, for how long and the number of occasions that he had jammed his brakes, he responded that he had not calculated the number of times the driver sped up, switched lanes and applied the emergency brakes but was aware that these actions had transpired. The Accused then suggested that if he was indeed speeding as he took the Rochor Road exit of the ECP, his vehicle would have swerved to one side, hit other vehicles and road kerb. PW 3 responded that he believed that the LTA would have more data on that and that just because he had successfully negotiated the bend and did not hit other vehicles or the road kerb did not mean that he had not exceeded the speed limit or was driving fast.
20. During re-examination, when PW 3 was ask to confirm who had the conversation with the taxi driver from their home to 1 Fullerton, he responded that he believed that he had given the instructions to the taxi driver and had the conversation with him. He was however unsure if PW 2 had said anything during the said journey.
“PW 4” – Joshua Soon Beng Huat
21. The next witness for the prosecution was PW 4, Joshua Soon Beng Huat, an investigations officer, attached to Comfort Transport Pte Ltd. He confirmed that his company had received a complaint from PW 2 over the incident on 11 March 2008. He testified that the taxi SHC 8018L belonged to his company and the driver of the said taxi on 11 March 2008 at 7.54 am was one Mr Loh Eng Keong. Mr Loh was a licenced relief driver for Comfort. He had interviewed the driver over the telephone. He also identified the Accused as the driver.
22. The Accused elected not to cross-examine PW 4 on his testimony.
“PW 5” – Seow Leng Teck
23. The next witness for the prosecution was PW 5, Seow Leng Teck, a Technical Executive, with Comfort Transportation Pte Ltd. He testified that he was asked to download the data from the taxi metre of SHC8018L for 11 March 2008 and produced the data from the download (“Exhibit P5”) during the trial. He explained the download displayed the vehicle number, the driver number, the trip number, the start date, start time, end time, end date, the total fare for the journey, the surcharges, the total distance, the hired distance, the maximum speed during the journey, the ERP surcharge, the peak hour surcharge, the current booking surcharge, the advance booking, the midnight surcharge, the staggered midnight surcharge, the airport surcharge, the holiday surcharge respectively.
24. PW 5 testified that for the trip in question on 11 March 2008, it started from 7.54 am and ended at 8.10 am. The taxi fare for the journey was $14.90. The total surcharge was $5.70, with $2.50 for the ERP surcharge and $3.20 for peak hour surcharge. The total distance traveled was 9 km and the maximum speed captured for the journey was 100 km/h.
25. The Accused elected not to cross-examine PW 5 on his testimony.
Close of Prosecution’s case
26. At the close of the Prosecution’s case, there was no submissions made that the Accused did not have a case to answer. After a careful consideration of the evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses before me, I was satisfied that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case which if unrebutted, would warrant the conviction in respect of the said charges. The standard allocution was administered and the accused elected to give evidence.
The Defence
“DW 1” – Loh Eng Keong
27. The Accused is Loh Eng Keong, presently a relief taxi driver with SMART. On the day in question, he had driven along Marine Parade Road and saw a couple hailing his taxi. He testified he stopped his taxi and asked them for their destination as he barely had sufficient funds in his cash card. When he was informed that they were going to the CBD, he agreed to take them as he found that there was a sufficient amount in his card.
28. He gave evidence that the couple requested him to go by the ECP. He drove out of Marine Parade and headed towards the ECP. At the early stage of the journey, he testified that he had hit a maximum speed of 100 km/h. He was aware that the speed limit is 90 km/h but it was normal to proceed at his current speed as according to him the Traffic Police officers have told him that they would give 10 km allowance. He further testified that during the whole distance before hitting the ECP speed trap camera, he had reduced his speed and had not exceeded 70 km/h all the way until the end of the journey to PW 2’s workplace.
29. He testified that he believed that he was in court as PW 2 was unhappy with his attitude when he had told her upon reaching the office that it was Robinson Road, Capital Tower. Prior to that, PW 2 had told him to go to Tanjong Pagar, Capital Tower. He informed her that there was no ‘Capital Tower’ at Tanjong Pagar and asked whether she was referring to the Capital Towers at Robinson Road. According to him, PW 2 raised her voice a little and told him to go to Tanjong Pagar Capital Tower. He told her that he did not know how to get to Tanjong Pagar Capital Tower and asked her for directions. He added that PW 2 gave directions but along the way, PW 2 kept claiming that he was speeding which he stated was impossible.
30. The Accused stated that the medical chit PW 2 had shown is good proof. If he was really speeding, she would definitely vomit or throw up during the journey but had not done so. He added that upon reaching DBS Tower, it is a 90 degree turn and then another 90 degree turn to Capital Tower and following that another 90 degree turn in Capital Tower. He testified that it was impossible to do a 90 degree turning especially at the second turn and that the distance between the two turns was less than 10 metres.
31. The Accused testified that he was in court as PW 2 had made a ridiculous complaint. In her testimony, she had said she was worried for her safety and wanted to get out of his taxi immediately and yet she had told him that he was rude and would complain against him. The Accused testified that he had kept quiet and had given her the change. According to him, PW 2 had told him that she knew his company’s CEO and could make him lose his job. He then told her that she must complain. He believed that this was what had sparked this incident.
32. During his cross-examination, when the prosecution made reference to Exhibit P5, he agreed that his taxi could have hit 100 km/h. When asked whether it was a fast speed that exceeded the limit on the ECP, he disagreed but stated that 90 km/h is the normal speed. When further asked whether his speed at 100 km/h would be in excess of the 90 km/h limit, he stated that it was very normal and that he was not the only one driving at 100 km/h. The Accused testified that if he exceeded the speed limit, the camera would take photographs of him and either LTA or Traffic Police would fine him. It was suggested to him that he would slow down to keep to the limit when there is a camera and would go at a faster speed when there is no camera. He responded as the prosecution is from LTA, he should know very well if a person drive at such speed or high speed, it is a habit. He had been driving for 20 years and LTA had not caught him speeding.
33. When the prosecution referred to the “Exhibit P5”, the taxi meter download, which showed that he had traveled at 131 km/h for the previous trip, he responded that it was irrelevant. When asked if he agreed that he had hit the speed of 130 km/h based on the record, the Accused replied that the focus be on the complaint issue. He did not want to talk about other issues as he did not want to get other people involved. He also did not want to answer the further question on his speed of 130 km/h as he did not think it was necessary.
34. During his cross-examination, he agreed with the prosecution that he had picked up the passenger at 7.54 am and that the trip had ended at 8.10 am. He agreed that the metered fare for the journey was $14.90 as well as the breakdown of the fare as $9.20, the ERP charge as $2.50, the peak hour surcharge as $3.20. He also stated that both PW 2 and PW 3 had spoken to him during the journey. According to him,PW 2 first spoke to him when she asked him to exit at Rochor Road. He disagreed with the prosecution when it was highlighted to him that PW 2 had testified that it was her husband who had asked him to exit at Rochor.
35. The Accused testified that while travelling along the ECP, he had asked his passengers whether to go to Tanjong Pagar and then 1 Fullerton. He further gave evidence that he had taken into consideration that if they had wanted to go to Tanjong Pagar, he would have had to exit at Prince Edward Road. When asked if PW 3 had corrected him on the destination, he responded that the latter had mentioned it along the trip. Nevertheless, it was PW 2 who had asked him to take the Rochor Road exit as PW 3 was using his hand phone. He disagreed with the prosecution when it was suggested that he was unhappy at being corrected to go to 1 Fullerton first and then to Tanjong Pagar. He further testified that it was very normal for passengers to correct taxi drivers.
36. When asked about the traffic condition along the ECP on that day, the Accused responded that when he hit the ECP, it was quite smooth. Upon reaching uphill, most of the vehicles had exited via the Rochor Road exit and as such he emphasized that there was no way he could speed. When confronted with his earlier question to PW 2 that he was not speeding due to the heavy traffic at that hour and his subsequent evidence that the first part was smooth sailing and the heavy traffic upon reaching the Rochor Road exit after being confronted with the evidence of his speed in Exhibit P5, he responded that he had never denied driving at a fast speed. He added that he had earlier mentioned when he hit ECP at the beginning, the traffic was quite smooth until a certain stage where the cars were backed up already. That was why he had asked PW 3 how many times he had switched lanes and had braked suddenly and PW 3 was unable to answer as none of this had occurred.
37. When asked what a passenger is expected to do along the ECP when taxi drives at a fast speed, his response was that it is a normal response for anyone to ask the person to slow down. He highlighted that both PW 2 and PW 3 had not said anything (during the journey) when it was their testimony that the Accused was switching lanes, speeding and had stepped on his brakes. When it was suggested that if a passenger informs the driver, the driver may get angry and chase them out of the taxi along the highway, the Accused responded that if he had done so, he would have quickly paid the fine. When it was put to him that it was natural for passenger to keep quiet and bring the matter up to the authority rather than to confront the driver on his behaviour, the Accused agreed with the prosecution but added that PW 2’s behaviour was contradictory as she had claimed that she knew his company’s CEO and wanted to make him lose his job. She could have simply taken the change and the receipt, quietly walk off and later make a complaint. He further testified that all taxi drivers have to issue official receipts. If he had not done that, PW 2 would have made a complaint and that he would not be able to defend himself. He denied throwing the receipt at PW 2 and stated that she was only trying to find fault with him.
38. When asked by the prosecution as to why PW 2 would allege that he had driven in a reckless manner, shouted at her and threw a receipt at her, the Accused responded that PW 2 was unhappy with him as he had corrected her on her destination. He stated that she had instructed her to go to Capital Tower, Tanjong Pagar when there was no Capital Towers at Tanjong Pagar. When it was put to him that his allegation of her unhappiness with him was untrue, he disagreed with the prosecution.
39. When the prosecution highlighted that the taxi meter record is consistent with PW 2’s testimony that he was going at a fast speed, he responded by asking the prosecutor whether he agreed with PW 2 and PW 3 when they testified that he was speeding as upon exiting Rochor Road it was a sharp curve. He further testified that it was only possible to go down a slope at a fast speed only for those people who drive a Ferrari or are professional drivers whereas he was not. When asked whether it was possible for a Mercedes limousine taxi to be able to go down a slope at a fast speed and likely that there are no accidents, the Accused responded that if a person does that, he is trying to make a suicidal attempt on themselves unlike him who was looking forward to a new baby.
40. During his cross-examination, he had disagreed with the prosecution when it was put to him that he was unable to keep left to take the Suntec City and had to go further down to Beach Road as he was coming down the Benjamin Sheares Bridge at a fast speed. He next explained that if he took the Suntec route, he would have to make a “semi round about’ to cut across to Oriental Hotel, make a left turn and upon reaching the traffic light, make a right turn all the way to Esplanade and a left turn to 1 Fullerton”. By taking the Beach Road route to 1 Fullerton, it was ‘much more simpler and easier’. Nevertheless, he agreed when it was highlighted that PW 3 had asked him to turn into Suntec. He asserted that the Beach Road route was simpler and easier and if he was unhappy about it, upon reaching his destination, he could have asked for a discount. He stated that many greedy passengers would do that if the taxi driver happened to take the wrong route but PW 2 and PW 3 did not do so. When asked whether he had gone by a different route from the one instructed by the passenger, he agreed but stated that he had informed PW 2 that the Beach Road route was more simple and easier and they had not complained about it to date.
41. When the first charge i.e. that he failed to behave in a civil and orderly manner, that is he had behaved in a rude manner and shouted at the passenger, was put to him, the Accused disagreed and responded that PW 2 would not be the one to complain about him as he would have received a complaint much earlier. Finally, when the second charge i.e. that he failed to take reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of his passengers but driving recklessly, weaving in and out of traffic and braking abruptly causing discomfort to the passenger, was put to him, he disagreed and responded that if he was endangering their lives (PW 2 and PW 3), who was he, a human and asked the prosecution if he was saying that he was something else i.e. other than a human.
Close of Defence’s Case
Assessment of Evidence
42. The two issues before me were whether the Accused had:
i) failed to behave in a civil and orderly manner towards a passenger by behaving in a rude manner and shouting at PW 2 in the course of the journey;
ii) failed to take all reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of a passengers in his taxi by driving recklessly, weaving in and out of traffic and braking abruptly thereby causing discomfort to PW 2.
43. Before dealing with the crux of the matter, I will first set out the undisputed facts of the case. They are as follows:
a) the Accused was the driver of motor taxi SHC8018L on the day of the incident;
b) both the PW 2 and PW 3 had boarded the Accused’s taxi from along Marine Parade Road and PW 3 had asked the Accused to firstly proceed to 1 Fullerton and thereafter to Tanjong Pagar;
c) PW 3 had requested the Accused to proceed to their destination via the ECP;
d) PW 3 had corrected the Accused when the latter wanted to proceed to Tanjong Pagar first and thereafter to 1 Fullerton;
e) PW 3 had alighted from the taxi first when they arrived at 1 Fullerton;
f) The maximum speed recorded in Exhibit P5, the taxi meter download, for the said journey was 100 km/h;
g) The Accused had sent PW 2 to her destination at Capital Towers which was located at Robinson Road;
h) The Accused had printed out a receipt (Exhibit P2) at the end of the journey when PW 2 requested for it.
44. What is disputed is the events that transpired in the course of the journey from Marine Parade Road to Capital Towers at Robinson Road. As the evidence relating to both charges is closely related, I will deal with them concurrently. In my assessment of the evidence, in particular when considering which version to believe, I had taken into account the demeanour of the witnesses, the credibility of the accounts, the consistency of the stories, and the independent evidence available.
The Accused’s manner of driving
45. In relation to the second charge, both PW 2 and PW 3 had been clear and forthright in their evidence that the Accused had driven at a fast speed in an aggressive manner, changed lanes without signaling as he drove in and out of the lanes and had applied the brakes abruptly. I also noted that PW 2’s version of events in her complaint email to the taxi company, Exhibit P3, which was sent within the same day, was materially consistent with her evidence in court. On the facts, I found that their evidence corroborated each other in the materially in relation to what had transpired during the journey from Marine Parade Road to 1 Fullerton. In addition, PW 2 had testified that this manner of driving continued even after PW 3 had alighted at his destination. PW 2 testified that for the journey from 1 Fullerton to Capital Tower, the Accused had driven more aggressively than ever. He switched lanes without signaling, applied his brakes abruptly and was almost involved in a collision with another car near the DBS building. The driver of the car horned at the Accused but the latter continued to switch lanes. PW 2 had testified that she felt giddy and nauseous after the taxi ride and had gone to see a doctor, PW 1, on the same day, when the symptoms did not subside a few hours later.
46. The evidence of PW 2’s discomfort as a result of the journey was corroborated by PW 1, a medical doctor and an independent witness, who had conducted a full examination of PW 2. PW 1 concluded that the patient most likely had a bout of motion sickness as a result of the taxi ride she had taken in the morning and had produced the medical note (“Exhibit P1”) she prepared in support of her testimony.
47. Further, the prosecution’s position that the Accused was travelling at a fast speed was independently corroborated by the taxi meter download (“Exhibit P5”), which had captured the maximum speed for the said journey to be at 100 km/h. When confronted with the evidence in Exhibit P5, the Accused had agreed that his taxi could have hit 100 km/h in the course of the journey. I noted that when he was asked whether his speed at 100 km/h would be in excess of the 90 km/h limit at the ECP, the Accused stated that it was very normal and had justified it on the basis that he was not the only one driving at 100 km/h.
48. In his defence, it was the Accused’s position that during the journey prior to the ECP speed trap camera, he had reduced his speed and had not exceeded the speed of 70 km/h until the end of the journey to PW 2’s workplace. It is also his position that he had hit a maximum speed of 100 km/h only at ‘the early stage of the journey’. In relation to the prosecution’s position that the Accused was speeding, had switched lanes without signaling and had stepped on his brakes throughout the journey, his defence was that this was not raised by either PW 2 or PW 3 to him in the course of the taxi ride itself.
49. I noted from Exhibits P2 and P5, that this was a 9-km journey which begun from 7.54 am and ended at 8.10 am and involved travelling during the normal weekday morning traffic (as both PW 2 and PW 3 were on their way to work), partly on an expressway (“the ECP”) as well as on normal roads in the CBD area. I also considered the fact that by the Accused person’s own account, he had reached the maximum speed of 100 km/h on the expressway on the earlier part of the journey and was travelling at no more than 70 km/h until the end of the journey at Capital Tower. Furthermore, according to the Accused person, driving at 100 km/h, a speed which is excess of the prescribed limit of 90 km/h was ‘very normal’ to him.
50. After a careful consideration of the conflicting accounts as well as the accompanying corroborative evidence, I accepted PW 2 and PW 3’s testimonies on the Accused’s manner of driving. I also found on the facts that the Accused was driving at a fast speed throughout the journey as it was clear that the Accused was clearly a person who thought nothing of driving at a speed beyond the prescribed limits as it was very normal to him. Consequently, I rejected the Accused’s defence that PW 2 had made these assertions against him to ‘get him into trouble’ for correcting her on the exact location of Capital Tower. It was clear to me that the Accused, despite being a service provider, had very little regards for the safety and comfort of his passengers. On the facts of the case, I found that the Accused had failed to take all reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of his passengers when he drove his taxi recklessly, weaved in and out of traffic without signalling and when he braked abruptly.
51. I now turn evidence before me in relation to the first charge.
The Accused’s behaviour
52. It was PW 2’s evidence that as soon as her husband, PW 3, had alighted from the Accused person’s taxi, the latter had suddenly asked her in a loud voice “Where are you going?” PW 2 testified that she then gave directions to her destination. At the end of the journey, as PW 2 wanted to raise the incident to the taxi company, she had requested for his particulars, his vehicle number as well as a receipt.
53. It was the prosecution’s case that the Accused had reacted to this request by turning around and throwing the receipt at her but it landed on the left side of the passenger seat. As PW 2 was frightened, she picked up the receipt (“Exhibit P2”) and alighted from the taxi as fast as she could and walked towards the building. As she walked away, she heard shouting and words spoken behind her although she was unable to make out what the driver said. Once again, I noted that PW 2 had sent a complaint email to the taxi company documenting the Accused’s behaviour towards her during the taxi ride from 1 Fullerton to Capital Towers and the particulars were materially consistent with her testimony in court.
54. The Accused’s defence to the first charge is one of denial and that PW 2 was only trying to get him into trouble with the taxi company. In my mind, I saw no reason for PW 2 to make any false allegations against the Accused as both had no dealings with one another prior to the incident. On the facts, I found that PW 2 must have been so traumatized by the journey that she not only needed medical treatment for her discomfort but felt compelled to take the trouble of bringing the matter up to the taxi company. After a careful consideration of the evidence before me, I found that the Accused failed to behave in a civil and orderly manner towards PW 2 as he had behaved in a rude manner and had shouted at her in the course of the journey and also as she walked away from his taxi at the end of the journey.
55. Based on the totality of the evidence before me, I found that the Prosecution had proven its case against the Accused in respect of the two charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I found the Accused guilty and convicted him on both the charges.
Sentence
Antecedents and Mitigation
56. The Accused has no prior antecedent. In his mitigation, the Accused stated that he strongly believed that he was right which is why he had claimed trial. He asked for leniency as he would have to use his baby bonus to pay the court fine.
Conclusion
57. In sentencing, I considered the fact that taxi drivers perform a public service and the performance of a public service necessarily demanded that it be done with a high level of honesty and care for the passengers which include the protection from harm and/or annoyance. On the facts, it was clear that not only did the Accused have little regard for the safety of his passengers, his rude and bullying behaviour towards them as a service provider was totally unacceptable and ought not to be condoned. In my view, there was a need to impose a sentence to specifically deter the Accused from repeating such acts as well as to act as a general deterrent to other like-minded offenders.
58. After a full and careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the absence of any remorse and the lack of any mitigating factors submitted for my consideration, I imposed a fine of $700 in default three days’ imprisonment in respect of each charge. The total fine imposed was $1400 in default six days’ imprisonment.
59. Dissatisfied with my decision, the Accused lodged a Notice of Appeal on the 17 February 2009 against the conviction and sentence in respect of both charges. The Accused has paid the fines in respect of the both charges.
Wednesday, 8 July 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)