When is an act rash?
A motorist approaches a traffic junction. He sees that the vehicle in front of him has driven into the junction. The motorist follows closely behind the lorry. The motorist does not check and so does not realise that the traffic lights had turned red. An accident happens and a pedestrian sadly passes away. Can the motorist’s actions be described as “rash”, or was he merely “negligent”?
This was the question the Court of Appeal had to decide in this case. In a rarely invoked process called a “criminal reference”, the Court of Appeal gave us permission to refer the following question to it:-
Does a finding of rashness in road traffic offences require consciousness as to risk?
Intuitively, using ordinary English language, one would have thought that a “rash” act requires a person to be aware of a risk, and then commit a deliberate act or omission despite the awareness of that risk. We therefore argued that, as the driver was not consciously aware of any risk of accident (because he had not realised that the traffic lights were red), the motorist was only careless or negligent. He was not rash.
The Court agreed with us that rashness does require consciousness as to risk. But, the Court disagreed with us on our argument that such consciousness should only be confined to a situation where a person is actually aware of a risk. The Court ruled that consciousness can also include a situation where a person was not himself actually aware of the risk, but the risk was so obvious that any other person would have realised the risk.
The question that then arises is: how then do we draw the line between negligence and carelessness on the one hand, and rashness or recklessness on the other?
Recent Resources
Road Traffic Act: Updated Framework for Repeat Drink Driving Offences
March 14, 2024
Introduction In December 2023, a significant judgment was handed down in the case of Lee Shin Nan v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGHC 354 (“Lee Shin Nan”) which introduced a new framework for sentencing repeat drink driving offenders in Singapore. Here’s an overview of the sentencing process under this new framework. Stage 1: Starting Sentence Range […]
Eugene Thuraisingam LLP X Founders Doc: What is defamation from the case of Rachel Wong v Olivia Wu?
March 6, 2024
In a video collaboration between Eugene Thuraisingam LLP and Founders Doc, our Suang Wijaya and corporate lawyer Rachel Wong came together to share their insights into defamation laws in Singapore and how they were applied to the notable defamation lawsuit of Wong Leng Si Rachel v Wu Su Han Olivia [2022] SGHC 15. With the […]
Eugene Thuraisingam as a Guest on the LegalCentred podcast
March 1, 2024
In February, our partner, Eugene Thuraisingam was invited as a guest on the flagship podcast series, The Lawcast, run by the student-initiated project LegalCentred. He shared about his long-standing career in litigation, including his extensive experience in criminal defence and public interest matters. LegalCentred is a student-initiated project that aims to increase the accessibility and […]
February 13, 2024
We are pleased to announce that Eugene Thuraisingam, Johannes Hadi and Ng Yuan Siang have co-authored the Singapore chapter of Lexology Panoramic’s Anti-Bribery & Corruption Guide 2024. The publication is a market-leading guide providing an overview of both domestic and international anti-bribery and corruption laws. The guide is designed for use by corporations and legal […]
February 8, 2024
Introduction Under Section 304(a) of the Penal Code, which punishes a person who commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder, a judge has a range of sentencing options – caning, jail term of up to 20 years, and life imprisonment. A father kills his two autistic sons,[1] a schoolboy kills his schoolmate,[2] and both the […]
