SINGAPORE: A woman who drove off with a cyclist on the bonnet of her car in a viral incident in Katong has past traffic violations for drink driving, running a red light and parking illegally, a court heard on Friday (Mar 22).
At the same hearing, 50-year-old Singaporean Elaine Michele Ow’s lawyer made lengthy pleas for his client against her spending any time in jail and asked for a high fine if possible.
Ow also disputed her past conviction history, stating that some of her parking offences were not committed by her but by her husband or sister instead.
At one point, defence lawyer R S Bajwa asked the judge to put herself in the position his client was in at the time, with an aggressive cyclist harassing her.
District Judge Janet Wang replied quickly: “No, I would not act that way.”
She added that “two wrongs do not make a right” and that “any reasonable and sensible person” like Mr Bajwa would just stop their vehicle and call the police.
Sentencing did not proceed as the prosecution has to clarify the allegations made by Ow regarding her traffic violations.
According to the prosecution, Ow was convicted of drink driving in 2006.
In 2004, 2005, 2009 and on two occasions in 2010, she parked opposite a continuous white line and paid a composition fine, the prosecution’s records state.
In 2010, she parked on an unbroken double yellow line and was given a composition fine.
In March 2021, she ran a red light and paid a composition fine.
Speculating on what could have happened, the defence explained that when his client got notice of composition for some of the offences, the authority might not have asked who the driver was and Ow just paid the fine.
On top of this issue, both sides also need to pad their arguments over whether a driving ban should be imposed on Ow, and if so, for how long.
THE CASE
Ow had pleaded guilty last month to one count of a rash act that endangered the safety of cyclist Nicolette Tan Shi’en.
She had driven her car along Still Road South on Jun 2 last year heading to mall i12 Katong to teach a cooking class.
Tan, a lawyer, was cycling along the same road and felt that Ow’s car was too close to her when they entered a slip road.
Tan then followed Ow’s car and caught up with her at a traffic junction where she confronted Ow.
Ow tried several times to veer around Tan, who positioned herself in a way that prevented Ow from leaving safely.
Ow apologised but the situation re-escalated when her vehicle came into contact with Tan’s bicycle and Tan tried to open Ow’s car door.
After this, Ow picked up Tan’s bicycle and carried it to the side of the road, saying she had a class to get to.
When Ow tried to inch forward and nudged Tan’s legs, Tan jumped onto the bonnet of Ow’s car.
Ow muttered “okay” to herself and accelerated, driving off with Tan clinging on to her bonnet and banging on the windscreen.
Tan slipped off at the entrance of the mall’s car park about 100m away and held on to one of the car’s windscreen wipers until passers-by coaxed her into letting go of it.
She saw a doctor for muscle strains and sought a follow-up visit about a month later.
SENTENCING ARGUMENTS
Deputy Public Prosecutors Mark Chia and Sunil Nair sought a short detention order (SDO) and a driving ban for Ow but did not specify the length.
An SDO is a community-based sentence that detains an offender in prison for not more than 14 days. It is supposed to act as a deterrent by allowing an offender to experience prison life, but does not leave a criminal record.
Defence lawyer Mr Bajwa argued extensively against imposing an SDO, saying his client is just not suitable for incarceration.
He tendered a psychiatric report to highlight Ow’s background of depression and anxiety and how the incident triggered a past incident and activated her fight-or-flight response.
However, he acknowledged that the report did not indicate any causal or contributory link these conditions had to the offence.
Judge Wang said the episode of anxiety was many years ago and Ow had defaulted on treatment.
Mr Bajwa argued that this case was unique and asked the court to tailor its approach accordingly.
He said “there’s no question” that the aggressor was the cyclist and not his client.
“She did everything right, until the point she drove off,” said the lawyer, adding that Ow had reversed five or six times to try and move away.
“There was a point your client crossed the Rubicon,” replied the judge. “When the victim was in front of her, and she was literally raring to go. She could have just stopped and not (driven) on. But she was anxious and in a haste to proceed to her class, which (seemed) to be her priority, singularly.”
EXCHANGES BETWEEN JUDGE AND DEFENCE
At this point, Mr Bajwa asked Judge Wang to put herself in the position of his client at the time, after being “harassed” by the cyclist who was blocking her every attempt to leave.
“No, I would not act that way,” said Judge Wang.
She said Ow’s role should not be downplayed.
“In the first place, I think she drove badly,” said the judge, calling Ow’s driving “inconsiderate”.
However, she stated that the cyclist’s matter would be dealt with separately.
Mr Bajwa said there was no clear evidence that Ow’s driving on the slip road had caused any injury to the cyclist or that Ow had even touched her.
At this point, Ow kept shaking her head in the dock.
Mr Bajwa continued arguing that his client apologised to Tan and asked Tan to let her go.
“Cyclist says: ‘I don’t care (that) you are late.’ These are all provocative statements being made in a very volatile situation,” said Mr Bajwa.
“And to (Ow’s) credit, she gets out of the car, she moves the bicycle away, and when she returned to the car, you can see how harassed she looks. That tells me she was really … in a strained state of mind,” said Mr Bajwa.
He argued that any injury caused to the cyclist was not by his client but by the cyclist’s own actions.
The judge responded that it came from the entire chain of events.
“So if you have some person standing in front of your vehicle, you would just bulldoze ahead?” she asked the lawyer.
“I will avoid,” replied Mr Bajwa. “And she avoided. Five, six times.”
“Yes, but she did drive on eventually, so that is my point,” replied the judge. “Any reasonable and sensible person like you Mr Bajwa, you would just stop your vehicle, call the police to deal with this person.”
Mr Bajwa said he was making a special plea not to send her to jail, even for the SDO, as she had “suffered so much” in custody.
He added that there was no need for a driving ban as this was a one-off incident.
“That’s where you’re wrong, Mr Bajwa,” said the judge. “That’s where her conviction history is relevant.”
The prosecution argued against a fine as sought by the defence, saying it would not serve the purpose of general deterrence.
This case is unique in the fact that the aggressor was the cyclist, but if rash driving is considered the crux of the matter, general deterrence should still apply, said Mr Chia.
At the end of the hearing, Judge Wang asked if Mr Bajwa was alright as he looked worried.
“I always look worried for my client, your honour,” he said.
“That is good,” Judge Wang replied.
The case was adjourned for about three weeks for further submissions to be made and for Ow’s conviction history to be clarified.
Tan is set to plead guilty on Apr 17, the day after Ow’s case is scheduled to be heard for sentencing.
