SINGAPORE: A woman who drove off with a cyclist clinging to the bonnet of her car in a 2023 road rage incident in Katong lost her appeal against a 12-month driving disqualification order at the High Court on Friday (May 16). Ms Elaine Michele Ow, 50, had earlier pleaded guilty to one count of a rash act endangering the safety of cyclist Nicolette Tan Shi’en and was given a short detention order (SDO) of three days by a district court in December last year. An SDO is a community-based sentence that detains an offender in prison for not more than 14 days and does not leave a criminal record. Ms Tan, a lawyer, was given a five-day SDO for her role in the incident. Both women have since served their SDOs. In addition to her SDO, Ms Ow, a private chef and cooking instructor, was also disqualified from driving for a year after her release. Ms Ow subsequently lodged an appeal against the disqualification order. This appeal was heard on Friday by Justice Hoo Sheau Peng, who dismissed it after finding that Ms Ow must be held “fully liable for her conduct”.
BACKGROUND
The dispute between Ms Tan and Ms Ow occurred on Jun 2, 2023. Ms Ow was driving along Still Road South on the way to i12 Katong mall to teach a class. Ms Tan was cycling along the same road and felt that Ms Ow’s car was too close to her when they entered a slip road. Ms Tan then followed Ms Ow’s car and caught up with her at a junction where she confronted the driver. Ms Ow tried to drive around Ms Tan several times, but the latter kept blocking her car. Ms Ow apologised but the situation re-escalated when her vehicle came into contact with Ms Tan’s bicycle and Ms Tan opened Ms Ow’s car door slightly. After this, Ms Ow picked up Ms Tan’s bicycle and carried it to the side of the road, saying she had a class to get to. When Ms Ow tried to inch forward and nudged Ms Tan’s legs, Ms Tan jumped onto the bonnet of the car. Ms Ow accelerated and drove off with Ms Tan clinging to her bonnet and banging on the windscreen. Tan slipped off at the entrance of the i12 Katong mall’s car park about 100m away.
APPEAL ARGUMENTS
Leading the appeal, Ms Ow’s lawyer Kanthan Raghavendra said that the SDO was sufficient punishment, and sought to have the disqualification order set aside, or in the alternative, for the order to be reduced. He said that there was “no necessity” for his client to “be punished twice” with a disqualification, following which his client would have to retake her driving test. A person disqualified from driving for a year or more must retake and pass a test of competence to drive to regain his or her licence. The lawyer sought to paint the case as a unique and unusual road rage situation. “We wish to highlight to this honourable court that (Ms Tan) was unnecessarily aggressive and persisted in the harassment of the appellant,” he said. He pointed out that his client was the initial road rage victim up until she drove off with Ms Tan on her bonnet. Ms Ow had made multiple attempts to de-escalate the situation by apologising and was in “fright or flight mode”, while Tan was in “fight mode” as shown by her aggressive behaviour, Mr Raghavendra argued. The lawyer highlighted several factors, including how Ms Tan had used abusive language, obstructed Ms Ow’s car and tried to open her car door in a threatening manner. “Any reasonable person would be shocked,” said Mr Raghavendra. Ms Ow’s act of driving off with Ms Tan on her car bonnet was also prompted by circumstances, Mr Raghavendra said. During the lower court’s proceedings, Ms Ow had submitted a psychiatric report which stated that her stress during the incident contributed to her state of panic and anxiety. Ms Ow had been close to a junction, in the middle of the road when traffic lights had turned green, and cars behind were honking, resulting in her acting the way she did, the lawyer said. “In the spur of the moment her reaction was to continue to drive forward to a space away from the main road, away from danger,” Mr Raghavendra said. The lawyer also argued that the degree of potential harm was low and actual harm caused to Ms Tan were minor injuries that did not require medical attention. Argue for the appeal to be…
