SPEEDING CHARGE OF MR PAUL ANTONY FERNANDEZ

SPEEDING CHARGE OF MR PAUL ANTONY FERNANDEZ

**

(Preventive measures): **

39.

Dr Ong Seh Hong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what were the reasons for the Traffic Police to charge security supervisor, Mr Paul Antony Fernandez, for speeding in spite of him providing proof that he was not the driver; (b) whether there was a need for Mr Fernandez to make 10 court appearances and spending thousands of dollars in legal fees before the charges were dropped; and (c) what measures, if any, are in place to prevent such future lapses.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: When a traffic offence is detected, Traffic Police will request the driver’s particulars from the vehicle owner. A summons notice offering to compound the traffic offence and stating the relevant composition amount would then be issued to the driver. If the driver decides not to accept the offer of composition, he can contest the charge in court.

In this case, a vehicle registered under Evtec Management Services Pte Ltd was captured by Traffic Police’s speed camera along Yishun Ave 2 on 11th February 2007. A notice of the traffic offence was sent to the company. The company submitted the particulars of Mr Paul Antony Fernandez as the driver of the vehicle. Based on this input, Traffic Police issued a summons to Mr Fernandez with an offer to compound the offence for $130 with four demerit points. Mr Fernandez was also informed that if he failed to take up the composition offer, the matter would be proceeded with in court.

Mr Fernandez subsequently appealed to the Traffic Police on 23rd April 2007, claiming that he was not the driver. As he had no conclusive proof of this, Mr Fernandez was advised to check with his employer who had given a statement in evidence that he was the driver. Mr Fernandez sent a second appeal to Traffic Police on 5th June 2007, requesting to view the photograph capturing the offending vehicle first as he wanted to be fully satisfied that he was the driver before settling the composition amount. Mr Fernandez was shown the photograph at the Traffic Police Headquarters on 28th July 2007 which captured the licence plate and positively identified the vehicle as belonging to the company but did not capture the driver’s identity. Mr Fernandez subsequently did not accept the offer of composition. He appeared in court on 10th September 2007 to answer the charge but denied committing the offence. This led to a Pre-Trial Conference being fixed on 26th September.

From 10th September 2007 to 17th January 2008, Traffic Police expended much time and effort to investigate the matter. Investigations were however hampered as the company’s staff failed to keep several appointments with Traffic Police. Eventually, Traffic Police did record statements from Mr Fernandez, Evtec’s management and employees, In addition, Traffic Police requested the company to produce relevant records to show that Mr Fernandez was the driver. Evtec claimed that it had installed a new computerised vehicle management system around that period and informed the investigator that the company needed more time to retrieve the relevant information as well as to conduct their own internal investigations. In the end, however, the company could not furnish any documentary evidence to show that Mr Fernandez was the driver. Through counsel, Mr Fernandez then made two representations to Traffic Police on 15th February and 19th June 2008 for the charge to be withdrawn. Further adjournments were thus necessary for Traffic Police to forward the Investigation Papers to AGC for its consideration.

Based on AGC’s assessment, the available evidence set out in the Investigation Papers was insufficient to prove conclusively that Mr Fernandez was the driver of the offending vehicle. Neither was the available evidence able to support Mr Fernandez’s contention that he was not the driver. AGC advised that further investigations were needed. As such, the Prosecution applied for a discharge not amounting to an acquittal, reserving the right to reinstate proceedings against Mr Fernandez should new evidence be uncovered subsequently. The District Court granted this application on 21st July 2008. Mr Fernandez subsequently filed an appeal to the High Court that was heard on 3rd October 2008, seeking a full acquittal on the charge. Taking into consideration the fact that Evtec, despite given ample time, had failed to produce any evidence to substantiate their claim that Mr Fernandez had driven the vehicle in question, the prosecution did not object to the appeal. Mr Fernandez was then granted a discharge amounting to acquittal.

This is a rare case and happened because the owner of the vehicle, when challenged by the named driver, took some time but still failed to furnish proof that the driver had indeed driven the vehicle. Hence, it dragged on for several months. Nevertheless, once a reasonable doubt was created as to the identity of the driver, Traffic Police did not proceed with the case.

**

**