THAM SAIK MUN, SIMON v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Vincent Hoong |
| Charges / claim | Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing |
| Counsel | Attorney-General's Chambers, August Law Corporation, Gregory Gan, Tan Wen Cheng Adrian |
Source: [2023] SGHC 179, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (4)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
Tham Saik Mun Simon v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGHC 179 is a grounds of decision of Vincent Hoong J in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 27 June 2023 in Magistrate's Appeal No 9163 of 2022. This was a drink-driving case in which the appellant, Mr Tham Saik Mun Simon, was charged before the District Court with an offence punishable under s 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act for driving a motor van at an open-air carpark near Block 146 Yishun Street 11 on 14 June 2019 at around 2.00am, with a body alcohol content of 75 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath, above the prescribed limit of 35 microgrammes. His main defence at trial and on appeal was that his elevated breath alcohol concentration would not have exceeded the prescribed limit under s 71A(2)(b)(ii) of the Road Traffic Act but for his post-driving application of Bonjela gel.
Summary
Tham Saik Mun Simon appealed against his conviction and sentence for drink-driving under s 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act, having driven with 75 microgrammes of alcohol per 100ml of breath against the 35 limit. His defence was that his elevated reading stemmed from applying Bonjela gel after driving. The court rejected this contention and dismissed his appeal against conviction and sentence.
What was Tham Saik Mun Simon v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGHC 179 about?
It was a drink-driving appeal before Vincent Hoong J, decided on 27 June 2023, in which Tham Saik Mun Simon was charged under s 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act for driving a motor van near Block 146 Yishun Street 11 on 14 June 2019 over the prescribed alcohol limit.
What was the appellant's defence in [2023] SGHC 179?
The appellant's main defence was that his breath alcohol concentration of 75 microgrammes per 100 millilitres, above the 35-microgramme limit, was attributable to his post-driving application of Bonjela gel and would not otherwise have exceeded the limit under s 71A(2)(b)(ii) of the Road Traffic Act.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (12)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments on the same subject, most closely matched first.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2023] SGHC 179)