Ong’s daughter, who did not have a driving licence in Singapore, made a U-turn along Tampines Avenue 2 without stopping and hit a motorcycle that had the right of way, leaving him with a fractured wrist, multiple abrasions and a broken motorcycle.
However, instead of letting his daughter bear the consequence, Ong told the police repeatedly that he was behind the wheel.
He repeated his lies to the court and was sentenced to five days’ jail for causing grievous hurt in a negligent manner in 2020, which he served.
The law firm representing the motorcyclist in a personal injury claim discovered audio from Ong’s in-car camera that cast doubt on who the driver was.
The ruse was unravelled two-and-a-half years after the incident, when the lawyers wrote to the police, who reopened the case.
Ong’s daughter had admitted to her involvement and was sentenced to 17 weeks’ jail, a fine of S$500 and two years’ driving ban in June.
On Friday, Ong pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiring with his daughter to intentionally pervert the course of justice and one charge of allowing his daughter to drive his car when there was no insurance policy in force for her use of the vehicle.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Jean Goh called for four to six months’ jail for Ong, along with a fine between S$500 and S$700 and 12 months’ disqualification from driving.
She said the offence went against “the very institution of justice itself” and contaminated the rule of law.
She also pointed to the detailed planning and persistence in perpetuating the conspiracy, with lies that were “layered and complex”.
She disagreed with the defence’s claim that the offences had occurred “in the spur of the moment”, saying that Ong had been thinking about how he could cover up his lies.
She asked the court not to take into consideration the five days’ jail Ong had already served, as this was “part of the criminal scheme” he perpetrated.
IT WAS FATHERLY LOVE: DEFENCE
In mitigation, defence lawyer S S Dhillon said this was a father and daughter relationship, where the daughter had committed the crime.
“The accused indeed committed no crime. If the daughter didn’t meet with an accident, he won’t be here today,” said Mr Dhillon.
“As a father, his fatherly love for the daughter made him decide to assume liability and to take the rap. There was no intention to cause harm or other consequences to any third parties,” said the lawyer.
“He is the author of his own misery, therefore he accepts the punishment. He is not complaining,” said Mr Dhillon. “He is pleading with your honour to note that his intentions were merely to save his daughter. He could not bear (the) fact that his daughter, who had just graduated with a degree from the United States of America, to be sent to prison. That’s his mistake in life.”
He said Ong had “certain pointers” as to what he did morally and ethically, but conceded that he was “absolutely wrong” in the criminal aspects.
“When the accident occurred and the police arrived at the scene, David spontaneously and instinctively told the police he was the driver. As a father, all he wanted was to protect his daughter. (Those) were his noble intentions – which had criminal consequences,” said Mr Dhillon.
He said that because the pair told the first lie, “they had to tell the second lie and the third lie”, adding that “they are connected lies, not additional lies”.
Mr Dhillon asked for three months’ jail, saying his client was remorseful and regretful.
“He has seen his daughter going to prison, and now he’s going to prison, for a crime he never committed,” he said.
DPP REBUTS
In response, the prosecutor said it was not true that Ong had not committed a crime.
“His crime was to allow an unlicensed driver to drive a motorcar, an individual with no valid insurance policy,” said Ms Goh.
On the defence’s point that Ong had acted “purely out of fatherly love”, Ms Goh pointed to a statement Ong had given, where he said: “I had taken the rap for my daughter because my vehicle was a rented car and only I was allowed to drive the car.”
She said that whether or not offenders are related cannot be an excuse for them to commit offences.
“No signal ought to be sent by this court that it is alright for one to assume criminal liability on behalf of another, whatever that particular motivation is,” she said. “It’s not a case where he was compelled to lie, rather a situation where he allowed the lies to build up.”
In sentencing, Judge Chin said he could not ignore the aggravating factors in the case, which includes the seriousness of the main offence Ong’s daughter had committed.
In assuming criminal liability for his daughter, Ong had himself evaded liability for his own offences, which include allowing his daughter to drive without insurance and a licence, said the judge.
Ong’s lies resulted in a miscarriage of justice, requiring a criminal revision in the High Court to quash his erroneous conviction and disqualification order and leading to “a significant delay and wastage of state resources”, said Judge Chin.