Court: No more default fines for negligent drivers

[Jellandross]

what do you guys think of this development? i personally feel that it's a change in the positive direction, considering the gravity of the consequence, i.e. death. having said that, it's fair to say that there'll also be those situations where, e.g. the jaywalker's gross negligence may be the primary cause of his/her own death and it has to be then investigated and proven in court.

 

p/s - a car cam is becoming more important - i got to stop procrastinating and get the damn thing installed.

 

------------------------------------------

 

Court: No more default fines for negligent drivers

 

20/05/2014 on mypaper

 

http://news.omy.sg/News/Local-News/story20140520-264376

 

A SPECIAL court of three judges, led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, yesterday overthrew a longstanding sentencing practice of imposing fines for causing death by negligent driving.

 

"It is important to signal to other drivers that they must be mindful of the terrible risks they take upon themselves and other road users when they drive when not fit to do so," said CJ Menon.

 

The court made the ruling as it allowed the prosecution's appeal and handed down a four-week jail term to 27-year-old Hue An Li, a sleep-deprived driver who crashed her car into a lorry carrying foreign workers in March last year. The impact caused all nine workers seated in the back to be flung out, killing one on the spot.

 

Last September, Hue, a casino surveillance officer, pleaded guilty to causing death by a negligent act and was fined the maximum $10,000 and banned from driving for five years.

 

The prosecution appealed to the High Court, arguing that she should be jailed for her "gross negligence" in driving after she had not slept in 24 hours.

 

Under the law, the offence carries a jail term of up to two years, or a fine, or both. But, generally, the courts have imposed fines. In a 1993 case, former CJ Yong Pung How ruled that if death was caused by a negligent act, a fine would suffice in most cases.

 

In Hue's case, the district judge, explaining why he gave her a fine instead of jail, cited the 2012 case of Ng Jui Chuan, who fell asleep at the wheel and hit an elderly couple in Upper Thomson Road in November 2009.

 

Mr Ng's $9,500 fine was upheld by a High Court judge, who said that driving when one is tired or sleepy is not an offence, but might be one if it had been proved that the tired driver knew he would likely fall asleep at the wheel, and yet drove.

 

But, yesterday, CJ Menon said these cases have to be viewed with caution and that the sentencing precedents were "unreliable".

 

He noted that the law was redrafted in 2008. After this, he said, there was no basis to continue on the premise that when death was caused by negligence, the default sentence is a fine.

 

As for the case of Mr Ng, CJ Menon said this should not be seen as an appropriate sentencing precedent as the remarks of the High Court were in the context of the line between a rash and a negligent act.

 

The appeal, heard yesterday by the Chief Justice, Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin and Judicial Commissioner Tan Siong Thye, was the first magistrate's appeal presided over by three judges instead of the usual one judge.

 

[email protected]

 

Edited May 20, 2014 by Jellandross

[Kratoschumacher]

About time, maybe the speed the vehicle was travelling and drink driving should be considered for longer jail term too..

[Caravan]

How about mandatory jail terms for drunk driving causing an accident?

[Ahgong]

what do you guys think of this development? i personally feel that it's a change in the positive direction, considering the gravity of the consequence, i.e. death. having said that, it's fair to say that there'll also be those situations where, e.g. the jaywalker's gross negligence may be the primary cause of his/her own death and it has to be then investigated and proven in court.

 

p/s - a car cam is becoming more important - i got to stop procrastinating and get the damn thing installed.

 

 

 

 

yep. and make sure it is a good one.

and that you got the settings right as well.

 

i got mine, but set the wrong settings. wanted to show how irresponsible some pedestrian can be, but the video is garbled. so pek chek.

[Ttbest]

 

SINGAPORE: Veteran television show host Quan Yifeng was on Wednesday fined S$800 and banned from driving for three months for knocking down a pedestrian at a crossing last year.

Quan, 40, also known as Chuan Yi Fong, had pleaded guilty to one count of inconsiderate driving under the Road Traffic Act.

The accident took place on July 2 last year at about 11am at the junction of Selegie Road and Sungei Road.

Quan had knocked down 28-year-old Raman Selvaraj at the pedestrian crossing as she was turning into Sungei Road.

The "green man" signal was on.

In mitigation, Quan said she had taken cue from a vehicle which was turning in front of her and did not notice that a pedestrian was at the traffic light junction.

She said she immediately got out of her car after the accident and helped to move the victim to the side of the road.

She also attended to him until the ambulance arrived.

The court was told Quan offered a compensation of US$1,000 (S$1,260) to the victim and said she will take care of his medical expenses.

Mr Selvaraj is said to be back at work.

This is not the MediaCorp artiste's first brush with the law.

In 2011, she was placed on a 15-month probation after an altercation with a cab driver.

In 1996, she was fined S$1,000 for fighting with a bowling alley assistant.

The penalty for inconsiderate driving is a maximum fine of S$1,000 and jail term of up to six months, on the first conviction.

 

If the above can get away with $800 fine for knocking someone who was totally not at fault given that the green man was on, what are negligent drivers compared to this case?

 

food for thought anyone?

[EXO]

Definitely a change in the good direction. Doesn't make sense when life is lost and yet the driver gets off with a fine and driving ban. It makes life seem so "cheap".

 

But any jail term has to be considered throughly as many a times, cyclist/pedestrains are not practicing "common sense" when crossing the road. We have seen a couple of case whereby the driver is mostly not at fault while getting penalized.

[Mr_b20]

Will it apply to ALL? Or AMDK conveniently excluded?

[Baal]

In view that my car would be a 5/10 PQP, with the possibility of being denied 1st party, I should also stop procrastinating installing the front view cam.

 

Considering that it now actively involves a jail term, would it not be appropriate to 1st splash across the 150th/CNA/M.Corpse (for a few mths) of the firm stance that the authorities would be adopting moving forward, as oppose to the typical fine + ban?

 

I am puzzled with this part though====== "But, yesterday, CJ Menon said these cases have to be viewed with caution and that the sentencing precedents were "unreliable".===========

While it appears to be a positive change, I hope this does not inadvertently further empower cyclist to cycle in an emboldened manner.

Now, back to tipper trucks & cement mixers...

what do you guys think of this development? i personally feel that it's a change in the positive direction, considering the gravity of the consequence, i.e. death. having said that, it's fair to say that there'll also be those situations where, e.g. the jaywalker's gross negligence may be the primary cause of his/her own death and it has to be then investigated and proven in court.

 

p/s - a car cam is becoming more important - i got to stop procrastinating and get the damn thing installed.

 

------------------------------------------

 

Court: No more default fines for negligent drivers

 

20/05/2014 on mypaper

 

http://news.omy.sg/News/Local-News/story20140520-264376

 

A SPECIAL court of three judges, led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, yesterday overthrew a longstanding sentencing practice of imposing fines for causing death by negligent driving.

 

"It is important to signal to other drivers that they must be mindful of the terrible risks they take upon themselves and other road users when they drive when not fit to do so," said CJ Menon.

 

The court made the ruling as it allowed the prosecution's appeal and handed down a four-week jail term to 27-year-old Hue An Li, a sleep-deprived driver who crashed her car into a lorry carrying foreign workers in March last year. The impact caused all nine workers seated in the back to be flung out, killing one on the spot.

 

Last September, Hue, a casino surveillance officer, pleaded guilty to causing death by a negligent act and was fined the maximum $10,000 and banned from driving for five years.

 

The prosecution appealed to the High Court, arguing that she should be jailed for her "gross negligence" in driving after she had not slept in 24 hours.

 

Under the law, the offence carries a jail term of up to two years, or a fine, or both. But, generally, the courts have imposed fines. In a 1993 case, former CJ Yong Pung How ruled that if death was caused by a negligent act, a fine would suffice in most cases.

 

In Hue's case, the district judge, explaining why he gave her a fine instead of jail, cited the 2012 case of Ng Jui Chuan, who fell asleep at the wheel and hit an elderly couple in Upper Thomson Road in November 2009.

 

Mr Ng's $9,500 fine was upheld by a High Court judge, who said that driving when one is tired or sleepy is not an offence, but might be one if it had been proved that the tired driver knew he would likely fall asleep at the wheel, and yet drove.

 

But, yesterday, CJ Menon said these cases have to be viewed with caution and that the sentencing precedents were "unreliable".

 

He noted that the law was redrafted in 2008. After this, he said, there was no basis to continue on the premise that when death was caused by negligence, the default sentence is a fine.

 

As for the case of Mr Ng, CJ Menon said this should not be seen as an appropriate sentencing precedent as the remarks of the High Court were in the context of the line between a rash and a negligent act.

 

The appeal, heard yesterday by the Chief Justice, Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin and Judicial Commissioner Tan Siong Thye, was the first magistrate's appeal presided over by three judges instead of the usual one judge.

 

[email protected]

 

 

 

[2BDriver]

How about mandatory jail terms for drunk driving causing an accident?

I would like to recommend Mandatory Canning For Drunk Driving causing fatal accident, this is equally murdering someone whom is so innocent to die in their driving path.

[Vid]

I would like to recommend Mandatory Canning For Drunk Driving causing fatal accident, this is equally murdering someone whom is so innocent to die in their driving path.

 

Can't agree more! [nod]

[Darthrevan]

its about time!

[Sci10213]

As the title says it all: ".... for negligent drivers"

 

The CJ falls short of saying this may apply to negligent cyclists or pedestrians ...

 

Go ask any motor insurance lawyer for their views what is actually happening on the ground when it comes to court cases where drivers vs pedestrians or cyclists...

[Simpleonly]

Support...driver need to ensure their mental n physical status is ready for driving...

[Alheych]

the prosecutor fierce...

 

Chief Prosecutor Tai Wei Shyong

[Voodooman]

I would like to recommend Mandatory Canning For Drunk Driving causing fatal accident, this is equally murdering someone whom is so innocent to die in their driving path.

Best post of the day.

[Donut]

I'm a damm advocate for heavy punishment when comes to negligence driving

 

drink driving, reckless, high on drugs, speeding racing, lack of sleep or sex, handphone using, etc.

 

All these need to carry some rotan strokes with jail

 

its bloody high time our law should be a world class standard, since we keep claiming to be one

Will it apply to ALL? Or AMDK conveniently excluded?

Dua kee should comes with thicker rotan dua kee too......

 

If the above can get away with $800 fine for knocking someone who was totally not at fault given that the green man was on, what are negligent drivers compared to this case?

 

food for thought anyone?

I don't understand why she still keeping her PR or citizenship. garment should just take it back from her

[1fast1]

There is a recent trend toward drastically increased penalties, even for offences that don't involve any personal injury. So be very careful on the roads.