Public Prosecutor v Andrew Phillip Lee

Facts

On 7 September 2024 at about 4.12 pm, a speed camera recorded a Mercedes owned by the accused, Andrew Phillip Lee, travelling at 141 kmph on the East Coast Parkway, where the limit was 70 kmph. He was charged with speeding under s 63(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 and claimed trial, suggesting that someone at a repair workshop or his former girlfriend might have been driving.

The workshop owner gave evidence, backed by messages and an invoice, that the car had been collected days before. The former girlfriend testified that she was at home waiting for the accused to pick her up; two minutes before the car was caught, she asked by message whether he was nearly there and he replied "ecp". When he arrived he told her the police were after him. The accused chose not to give evidence. He was convicted and sentenced, and he appealed only against the disqualification order. These are the District Judge's grounds.

Issues

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver when the car was caught speeding.
2. What sentence, in particular what length of driving disqualification, was appropriate for driving at more than twice the speed limit after a trial.
3. Whether the effect of disqualification on the accused's work was a mitigating factor.

Holding

The District Judge convicted the accused and sentenced him to a fine of $1,000, in default 3 days' imprisonment, and disqualification from driving all classes of vehicles for 9 months. The accused paid the fine and appealed only against the disqualification.

Reasoning

On conviction, the workshop evidence showed the car was back with the accused, and his "ecp" reply just two minutes before the offence, together with his remark that the police were after him and his decision not to explain any of it, left the judge satisfied he was the driver. His argument that the message did not say he was driving was described as clutching at straws.

On sentence, the judge agreed with the prosecution that deterrence was needed. The accused had driven at more than twice the limit and had overtaken another vehicle, so a collision could have been disastrous. His comment that the police were not supposed to be on duty showed he sped deliberately because he expected not to be caught. Although he was entitled to claim trial and stay silent, contesting clear evidence showed no remorse.

The impact of a ban on his client-facing job was not mitigating. Citing M Raveendran v Public Prosecutor [2022] 3 SLR 1183, the judge held that giving weight to such personal consequences would favour some offenders over others and weaken deterrence; the inconvenience is part of what a disqualification is meant to achieve. The judge also noted official figures showing a sharp rise in speeding violations and related deaths in 2024, and observed that because the maximum fine is small compared with the cost of a car, disqualification is the main deterrent.

From the judgment