A woman, who was licensed solely as a private-hire driver and not as a taxi driver, accepted two passengers who hailed her vehicle. Subsequently, an accident occurred involving her car, leading to a court case where the judge imposed a fine of S$2,300 (US$1,706) and a 12-month driving ban.
The conviction resulted from two charges that the Grab driver initially denied but was found guilty of: using a chauffeured private-hire car without a valid license permitting taxi usage and operating a private-hire car for profit or reward as a taxi public service vehicle without the appropriate insurance policy.
Background
According to a recently published judgment on June 7, 2023, Nandha Sharm Nair drove her private-hire car on the evening of January 27, 2022. At MacPherson Road, two individuals attempted to hail a taxi, and Nair, aged 45, halted her car in front of them. Although neither of the men had made a reservation, Nair agreed to transport them to Beatty Lane, a journey of approximately 15 minutes.
Upon arrival at Beatty Lane, one of the passengers handed Nair a S$50 note and requested change. After negotiating, Nair accepted S$25 from him. While Nair was discussing the fare with one passenger, the other passenger alighted first and accidentally struck Nair’s car with his own vehicle.
The court documents did not disclose how Nair’s offenses came to light, but they did mention that the passenger responsible for the accident was investigated by the traffic police shortly after. Despite Nair’s claim that both passengers might have been intoxicated, the passenger who caused the accident was not ultimately convicted of any drink driving offense.
Under the Road Traffic Act, a vehicle cannot be used as a public service vehicle unless a valid license authorizing such use is held. The key distinction between a private-hire car and a taxi lies in the fact that a taxi can actively seek passengers, while a private-hire car cannot, as stated in the judgment.
Referring to previous legal cases, District Judge Soh Tze Bian clarified that a vehicle driving along the roads in search of fares and stopping when hailed is clearly considered plying for hire. He added that an important consideration in this case was whether a prior booking had been made before the driver interacted with the potential passenger, either through a ride-hailing app or a similar platform. If such a booking had been made, the vehicle would not be deemed to be plying for hire.
Nair, in her defense, claimed that she had a booking that was ultimately canceled at the location where the two men were waiting by the roadside. She stated that she agreed to transport them solely out of compassion, as they had allegedly been waiting for nearly an hour without finding a ride. Nair insisted that there was no discussion of fees or financial gain when the passengers entered her vehicle or during the journey, thus asserting that she did not employ her car as a public service vehicle.
Judge Soh, however, concurred with the prosecutors from the Land Transport Authority who argued that Nair lacked credibility as a witness. He considered her testimony to be self-serving and an attempt to absolve herself of any liability for the offenses.
Judge Soh found that Nair did not transport the two men out of compassion. He determined that Nair initially stopped her vehicle to check on her canceled booking, implying that she was likely seeking passengers. He stated that it was evident Nair used her vehicle to ply for hire without possessing a valid taxi public service vehicle license.
The judge highlighted that taxis are subject to stricter regulations compared to private-hire cars, including more frequent inspections and more rigorous driver training. He emphasized that private-hire cars should not perform street-hailing functions reserved for taxis, as this is crucial for the safety of both drivers and passengers.
The judge noted that Nair’s lack of prior convictions was her only mitigating factor.
For using a private-hire vehicle as a taxi without a valid license, Nair could have faced a maximum penalty of six months in jail, a fine of up to S$3,000, or both. Additionally, for operating a private-hire car for profit or reward as a taxi public service vehicle, she could have received a prison term of up to three months, a fine of up to S$1,000, and a 12-month driving ban.
