elephanto, the link not working.
can try this cached copy instead.
http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cach...413.html+lim+kay+han&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=sg
Public Prosecutor v Lim Kay Han Irene
[2009] SGDC 383
Close
Suit No: DAC 27024/2009, MA 331/2009
Decision Date: 16 Oct 2009
Court: District Court
Coram: Salina Bte Ishak
Counsel: DPP Lin Yinbing for the prosecution, Sant Singh and Chen Chee Yen of Tan Rajah & Cheah for the accused
Judgment
16 October 2009
District Judge Salina Ishak:
1. The Accused, Dr Lim Kay Han Irene, a senior member of the medical profession, had pleaded guilty to a charge of drink driving under Section 67(1)(b) Road Traffic Act which reads as follows:
DAC 27024/2009 (“Exhibit C1”)
1st CHARGE
You,
Lim Kay Han Irene, Female /58 yrs
NRIC No: S0587320G (D.O.B:28.12.1950)
are charged that you, on the 26th day of April 2009, between 9.00 pm and before 1.32 am the following morning, along Pan Island Expressway, Singapore, when driving motor car EV 4046 S did have so much alcohol in your body that the proportion of it in your breath, to wit, not less than 129 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, exceeded the prescribed limit of 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act, Chapter 276.
Summary of Facts
2. The Statement of Facts (“Exhibit P1”) which the Accused agreed to without any qualifications reads as follows:
1. The complainants are:
(A1) Mahapandi Bin Embi, who is an EMAS patrol officer attached to EMAS, Land Transport Authority; and
(A2) Cpl Noor Hibayah, who is attached to Traffic Police Department.
2. The accused is Lim Kay Han Irene, female 58 years old, NRIC No: S0587320G. She was the driver of motor car EV 4046S at the material point in time.
3. On 27 April 2009 at about 1.32 am, an EMAS Control Room officer observed that a motor car EV 4046S was stationary on lane 3 along Pan Island Expressway in the direction of Tuas near the exit of Clementi Avenue 6. A1 was activated to check on the incident.
4. A1 arrived at the location at 1.38 am and noticed that the car was still stationary. The engine appeared to be running and the car’s headlights were on without hazard lights. A1 approached the car and spoke to the accused who was in the car. He noticed that the accused had an alcoholic breath. He then informed the Control Room and a message was forwarded to the Traffic Police Ops Control Centre.
5. A2 was dispatched to attend to the incident. A2 arrived at the scene and could smell alcohol on the accused. She conducted a breath analyzer test on the accused and the accused failed the test. The accused was then placed under arrest for driving whilst under the influence of alcohol and was escorted to the Traffic Police Department for a Breath Evidential Analyzer (BEA) Test.
6. The BEA test was conducted on the accused by police officer Wong Sieu Lui on the same day at 3.47 am at the Traffic Police Department. The BEA test result found 129 microgrammes of alcohol in every 100 millilitres of the accused’s breath. The prescribed limit is 35 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath.
7. Investigations also revealed that between 9 pm on 26 April 2009 and 1.32 am on 27 April 2009, the accused was driving motor car EV 4046 along the Pan Island Expressway.
8. The accused, by driving on the road when she had so much alcohol in her body that the proportion of it in her breath exceeds the prescribed limit, has committed an offence under Section 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act.
Antecedents and Mitigation
3. The Accused has no prior antecedents.
4. In his written plea in mitigation, Counsel highlighted the following mitigating circumstances:
a) The Accused did not cause any accident resulting in injury or damage to property. The risk which the law seeks to prevent did not in fact materialize in the present case;
b) She had driven during the wee hours of the morning when there was very little traffic flow. It was submitted that the level of danger caused by her conduct to other road users is relatively less;
c) The offence was not deliberate but had occurred due to sudden and traumatic events which arose on 27 April 2009. The Accused was abruptly woken up by the call from the hospital informing her about the deterioration in her aunt’s condition. At that time, her first thought was that her aunt was dying and naturally her first reaction was to go straight to her aunt. It did not even occur to her that she had been drinking earlier in the night before she had gone to bed;
d) Counsel submitted that the circumstances surrounding what she did i.e. the deterioration in her aunt’s condition and her transfer to ICU and the Accused having driven out of urgency to see her aunt whom she thought was dying are factors which call for leniency in sentencing;
e) The Accused is deeply remorseful for her actions. She had cooperated with the Traffic Police in their investigations. She was prepared to plead guilty in the first instance if not for the court advising her seek legal counsel for her case. She has indicated that she is prepared to voluntarily give up her Class 3 driving licence. All these show genuine contrition and remorse on her part;
f) The Accused is a first offender. She has never engaged in drink driving prior to the present case. She has always taken strict precautions against drink driving. She seldom drives and if she has to attend an event where she may have to drink, she always engages the use of external limousine services so that she does not need to drive. Such a practice is strictly adopted by the Accused without exception, even if the venue is just nearby.
Personal Mitigating Factors
5. Counsel also further elaborated on the Accused’s personal mitigating circumstances. In summary, they are as follows:
a) The Accused, currently 59 years of age, is married with no children to Dr David Stringer. Both are Senior Consultant Radiologists at the KK Hospital Women’s and Children’s Hospital;
b) She is a well-respected radiologist with 25 years of experience. A copy of her curriculum vitae was enclosed at Annex 5 and a brief summary of her medical career was provided;
c) She is also active in charity work;
d) She has also contributed to the Singapore Arts scene by supporting the development of theatre when it was in its infancy and helped develop theatre productions. She has appeared on the small screen as well as acted in short films;
e) She has not been in good health of late. Between June and October 2008, she had four life threatening episodes characterized by a sudden drop in her blood pressure, giddiness, shortness of breath, throat swelling and airway obstruction. She suffers from Morton’s Neuroma i.e. a tumour-like growth on a nerve in her right foot which causes her intense pain when she walks and thereby affecting her gait. She is required to wear special footwear and specially made insoles for her condition. She also suffers from familial involuntary tremors which is aggravated when she is nervous or stressed. This is the reason by she seldom drives;
f) She has a clean record and has never before had a brush with the law.
In conclusion, Counsel urged the court to impose a fine and a lengthy disqualification on the Accused.
The Sentence
6. The usual tariff for an offence of drink driving where the level of alcohol is more than three times the prescribed limit is a custodial sentence. The length of imprisonment would depend on whether there was any accident resulting in property damage and/or personal injury or other aggravating factors. After carefully considering the circumstances of the case as well as the mitigating factors, I sentenced the Accused to 2 weeks’ imprisonment and a 4-year’ disqualification from holding or obtaining a licence for all classes with effect from the date of release.
7. Dissatisfied with the sentence imposed by me, the Accused lodged a Notice of Appeal on the same day, i.e. on 15 October 2009. The Accused is presently on bail of $15,000 pending the hearing of her appeal.
8. I now give detailed reasons for my decision.
Sentencing Consideration
Drink Driving
9. The offence of drink driving is punishable with a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine of not less than $3,000 and not more than $10,000 and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months. In addition, the offender is liable to a mandatory disqualification of not less than 12 months from the date of his conviction or, where he is sentenced to imprisonment, from the date of his release from prison unless special reasons are provided.
10. As a starting point, as stated in Sentencing Practice in the Subordinate Courts, Second Edition at page 938-939: “Generally a fine is the norm for a first offender [for drink driving] unless there are aggravating circumstances. The aggravating circumstances are usually high levels of impairment of driving or intoxication as well as involvement in an accident resulting in personal injuries.”
