South-East Asia (Page 976)

SINGAPORE: A man who had been convicted of drink driving before did it again – but this time, he sped along a slip road and collided with a person who was standing beside their broken-down car.

Company director Ang Hiap Boon on Friday (Jun 16) pleaded guilty to his involvement in the fatal accident in what is the first case of its kind since traffic laws were enhanced in 2019.

The 51-year-old is considered a “serious repeat offender” under the enhanced laws. As this is believed to be the first time the court sentences a serious repeat offender in such a case, the judge asked for further submissions from both sides to guide the court and adjourned mitigation and sentencing to August.

Ang pleaded guilty to one count of drink driving as a repeat offender and one count of driving without due care and attention, causing death.

WHAT HAPPENED

The court heard that Ang was a vice president of operations at a company as well as a director of a consulting company. He was fined and banned from driving in March 2005 for drink driving.

After his driving ban was lifted, he retook his driving test and obtained a driving licence again in 2007.

On Oct 26, 2020, he drank about four 200ml glasses of red wine at a restaurant along Syed Alwi Road.

He drove his wife’s white BMW and headed home, travelling along Jalan Besar Road and making a left turn into Ophir Road where a slip road leads to the East Coast Parkway.

It was past midnight on Dec 27, 2020 when Ang exceeded the 50kmh speed limit of the slip road at various points, by going at speeds of up to 74kmh. 

Ahead of him, the 56-year-old victim had stopped his own white BMW on the left lane of the two-lane slip road, as it had broken down.

Ang drove quickly, hovering between the two lanes. There was a van blocking his way on the right lane, so Ang steered left towards the lane the victim was in.

According to video footage from Ang’s vehicle played in court, he did not appear to stop at all but careened into the victim and the victim’s car.

The footage was so graphic that the judge cautioned about its content and asked if anyone would like to step out of the court beforehand.

The victim’s BMW had its tail lights lit, but Ang did not notice it. The victim was clearly visible as he wore a light top against a dark road. He had his back to Ang when the collision occurred.

THE AFTERMATH

On impact, the victim was flung onto the other lane and Ang’s windscreen cracked.

Traffic police officers who were at a nearby roadblock and who had witnessed the collision went to the scene.

The victim was taken to hospital but died that same day of a head injury. He had gone into traumatic cardiac arrest.

Ang’s breath alcohol content was 76 microgrammes per 100ml of breath, above the prescribed limit of 35 microgrammes per 100ml of breath.

Ang had a long list of past traffic violations which Deputy Public Prosecutor Heershan Kaur read out, other than his 2005 drink driving conviction.

In 1999, he paid a composition or out-of-court fine of S$150 for failing to conform to a red light signal.

In 2000, he paid S$130 for crossing double white lines. In 2004, he paid S$130 for driving in a bus lane during prohibited hours.

In 2007, he paid S$70 for parking along unbroken double yellow lines. In 2010, he paid S$130 for speeding. He paid another S$170 for speeding in 2011.

In 2012, he paid S$30 for crossing double white lines. In 2013, he paid S$200 for failing to conform to a red light signal again. 

In 2014, he paid S$150 for speeding again.

The prosecutor asked for a disqualification from obtaining driving licences for 13 years.

Both sides did not go into submissions on the jail term to be imposed, as the judge had queries he wanted both sides to address, since this is the first fatal road traffic accident case under the “serious repeat offender” provision.

The case will be heard again in August.

The penalties for driving without due care and attention, causing death, are a jail term of up to three years, a fine of up to S$10,000, or both.

Where the person is a serious repeat offender, he can get an additional jail term of up to four years. He also faces a driving ban.

For repeat drink driving, Ang can be jailed for up to two years, fined between S$5,000 and S$20,000, and banned from driving for five years.

Continue Reading

On the second ground, Justice See said it was pertinent to note from case records that J was previously represented by two different sets of lawyers.

The first set had acted for him since 2020 and was discharged in May 2022, apparently because he disagreed with the lawyers’ advice.

The second set of lawyers was discharged in October 2022, when J was originally scheduled to plead guilty along with several co-conspirators.

J had apparently changed his mind, and counsel discharged themselves because of his inconsistent instructions.

“In short, the accused already had the benefit of legal advice for well over two years from two different counsel,” said Justice See.

“The fact that the accused was unrepresented when he pleaded guilty on May 4, 2023 is not relevant to whether his sentence was manifestly excessive. 

“He was afforded every opportunity to mitigate. He was given more than sufficient and ample time to prepare for his mitigation.

The record would also show that I had endeavoured to guide him as much as I could through the course of the proceedings. I do not think that he was prejudiced or impeded in any way on account of being unrepresented.”

The judgment on Friday revealed new information about J’s account that was previously unreported.

This includes the fact that J blamed “irresponsible and unethical people” for trying to “over-sensationalise (his) case as a pornographic story that stems from fantasy of threesome sex and wife sharing/swapping” and for painting a persona of him which was “totally not what (he was) in reality”.

He claimed that he was “never interested” in the wives of his co-accused but had only been acting to reciprocate their friendship and help.

J sought to distance himself from his co-conspirators, explaining that he did not want to be sentenced together with them.

He added he did not want to be “seen and stereotyped as one who thinks and behaves the same as them, and have the same agenda”.

J also claimed that his actions and state of mind were “triggered” because he was influenced by two of the co-accused – K and L.

The appeal will be heard at a later date.

Continue Reading