SINGAPORE — A 54-year-old man who contested a minor traffic offence was cleared of it in a district court with a judge noting that it took “a very long time by any standards” to get to trial.

District Judge Christopher Goh found that the traffic police officer who had purportedly seen Mr Ngan Gim Seng beating the red light could have taken down the car’s particulars by mistake, casting reasonable doubt on the officer’s evidence.

The prosecution is now appealing against the acquittal.

In his grounds of decision released last week, Judge Goh said that the case had begun in the Night Courts, which deal with regulatory and traffic offences, about two years ago. 

“It took some two years for this matter to come to trial, a very long time by any standards, let alone the relatively minor nature of the offence. 

"By this time, not only will memories fade but important evidence such as video camera footage — from the Land Transport Authority and police — and cash card transaction records may no longer be available. If one were available, it would have put to bed any issues in this case,” he said. 

Judge Goh suggested that police officers on static station duty capture such offences on video “if this is not already the case” as this would help all parties and “lead to a speedier resolution”.

The trial centred around an alleged incident on Nov 20, 2017 along North Canal Road towards Merchant Road at the junction of Eu Tong Sen Street in the Chinatown area.

Mr Ngan was charged with one count under the Road Traffic Act for beating the red light at about 6.30pm that evening. 

He and his daughter, a law school graduate at the time, were headed to his son’s concert at his secondary school.

Mr Ngan’s lawyer, Mr Kalidass Murugaiyan, argued that it was a case of mistaken identity.

In court, Mr Ngan testified that he did not drive past North Canal Road that day and did not even enter the city area, which his daughter testified to as well.  

At the time of the alleged offence, he said he had been searching for a parking lot near his son’s school in the Serangoon area.

The prosecution argued that the traffic police officer, who was on duty at the junction by himself that evening, had observed Mr Ngan’s car for five seconds, which they described as a “sufficiently long” period.

After spotting the car, he recited the details aloud and took them down on his notepad before transferring them to his patrol log sheet within a day.

The officer’s description of the car — a white Hyundai — also matched Mr Ngan’s car.

While on the witness stand, he testified that he could not tell if the driver was male or female or if there were any passengers. 

It was not part of the standard procedure to make a video recording of the incident either.

Mr Murugaiyan also argued that investigations into the matter had been shoddy with no attempt to get video footage from police cameras in the area some four months later. 

No one had retrieved details from the cash card in Mr Ngan’s car either.

Judge Goh expressed his doubt that the officer had a “good observation” of the car’s licence plate as he would have been looking at it from an angle. 

Moreover, the officer had described the weather as fine and the road surface dry when it was drizzling then, the judge said.

While the officer had given convincing evidence, Judge Goh did not find it “unusually convincing” enough to convict Mr Ngan.

Mr Ngan could have been fined a composition sum of S$200. Drivers who beat the red light from April 1 this year will face double that amount.