SINGAPORE: An SMRT bus driver accused of rash driving, causing the death of one passenger and injuring another has been acquitted.
Zhang Kun, 43, had lost control of bus service number 700A as he was negotiating a sharp bend along the slip road of Bukit Timah Expressway into Dairy Farm Road. This happened on Jul 21, 2013 at about 8.50am. The vehicle veered across two lanes before crashing into a barrier and toppling over.
The prosecution argued that Zhang had been travelling 6km/h over the 50km/h speed limit as he entered the slip road, and as fast as 78km/h just before he lost control of the bus.
The crash killed 18-year-old Sasikumar Gunasakaran and injured 52-year-old Ramanand Panday A Panday. They were Zhang’s only passengers at the time.
On Tuesday (Jan 17), District Judge Michelle Yap acquitted Zhang of two charges, saying she was “not satisfied” the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for three reasons.
First, the prosecution had not “sufficiently proven” that Zhang was travelling at a speed of at least 56km/h when he entered the slip road, said the judge, pointing to unreliable and irregular data recorded by the bus’ black box.
DJ Yap also refused to accept “highly speculative and contrived” data attempting to pinpoint the speed of the bus at specific points – when it collided into the barrier for example – put forward by the prosecution. She said the method used to come up with the data “involved a lot of guessing and estimation”.
PROSECUTION’S WITNESS NOT CREDIBLE
Zhang had argued in his defence that the bus had been faulty. He said he experienced brake problems and “engine runaway,” which caused the bus to accelerate on its own.
The prosecution’s expert witness, STA Inspection’s Tan Jiat Shee, said he found an air leak in one of the bus’ air pipes which could have affected brake efficiency. However, he claimed he was unable to conduct a break efficiency test on the bus due to the damage it had sustained in the crash.
When it emerged that SMRT staff had successfully conducted the test – which showed no problems with the brakes – Mr Tan’s credibility as an expert witness was “seriously undermined,” DJ Yap said.
However, DJ Yap “gave no weight” to SMRT’s brake test result, seeing as it was conducted by a non-independent party. “This is important because SMRT is an interested party to the case,” she said, adding that it was “troubling” that SMRT staff had “unsupervised access to the bus … there was a break in the chain of custody over crucial evidence.”
The SMRT bus lying on its side along Dairy Farm Road.
ZHANG WAS “DISADVANTAGED” BY OFFICER’S ACTIONS
The District Judge also took issue with the fact that the defence had no chance to examine the bus before its disposal, and had to rely on the findings of the prosecution’s expert witness to conduct Zhang’s defence.
She pointed out the bus had been returned to SMRT, which dismantled some parts of the bus, even before Zhang was charged in court in December 2016 – six months after the accident.
DJ Yap criticised the investigating officer in the case for “wrongfully releasing” the bus to SMRT in breach of the Criminal Procedure Code, which states that even the court cannot order a disposal of property if there is any pending court proceeding in relation to the property.
“The accused was unable to conduct his own inspection of the bus to determine if there was any mechanical fault. Any doubt in this regard should be ruled in the accused’s favour,” DJ Yap said, noting that Zhang’s inability to examine the bus had “disadvantaged him in the conduct of his defence”.
