His ex-girlfriend testified that when Andrew Phillip Lee arrived at her house, the first thing he said was "the police are after me".

Stock photo of a man driving. (Photo: iStock)

This audio is generated by an AI tool.

Andrew Phillip Lee claimed trial, alleging that the driver may not have been him as the vehicle had been sent to a workshop and his ex-girlfriend occasionally drove the Mercedes-Benz SL350.

According to a judgment made available over the weekend, a traffic police officer with a speed camera caught the vehicle travelling along the ECP to Changi Airport at 141kmh, 71kmh above the speed limit at about 4.10pm on Sep 7, 2024.

Ownership of the vehicle was traced to Lee, but he said he may not have been the driver, as the vehicle had been sent to a workshop and someone from there may have driven it.

The 50-year-old man also said his ex-girlfriend may have driven it.

At trial, the prosecution called the workshop owner, Mr Shawn Yap Huai Bin, who testified that the vehicle was no longer with the workshop at the time of the offence.

The court was shown an exchange of messages between Lee and Mr Yap on Sep 3, 2024, four days before the offence.

Lee asked Mr Yap if the car would be ready for pick-up that day, and Mr Yap said yes.

The next day, Lee sent Mr Yap another message, asking if there was a fuse or relay that needed to be reset for the power boot function.

District Judge Lim Wee Ming noted that this message showed that the car had been collected from the workshop as of Sep 4, 2024.

There was also an invoice from the workshop dated Sep 3, 2024, showing that the repairs had been completed as of that date.

The prosecution also called Lee's ex-girlfriend, who testified that she was waiting at home for Lee to pick her up on the afternoon of the speeding offence.

At 4.10pm that day, she sent a message to Lee saying: "I can come out if (you are) reaching."

Lee responded immediately saying: "ecp".

The woman testified that when Lee arrived at her house, he said the police were after him. He later said that it was "a serious case", that he may lose his licence, and that he was intending to sell his car.

She also said that Lee told her that "the police was not supposed to be on duty, saw him speeding".

The traffic police officer who had seen the vehicle speeding and captured it on his speed camera, testified that the car had passed another vehicle while speeding.

Lee, who was unrepresented, chose not to testify. He accepted that the evidence showed that the vehicle travelled at a high speed.

However, he argued that the prosecution's case rested on his ex-girlfriend, and that his texts with her did not show that he was driving at the time.

The judge convicted him, saying that the evidence showed that the car was not at the workshop at the time of the offence.

He said he was satisfied that the ex-girlfriend's evidence shows that Lee was driving the vehicle when it was speeding at 141kmh.

"The accused's submission in relation to his 'ecp' reply, that the message did not say that he was driving or speeding at that time, was clutching at straws, particularly as the accused did not give any evidence to explain what he meant when he responded 'ecp', just two minutes before the speeding offence occurred," said Judge Lim.

The prosecution sought a fine of S$1,000 and a driving ban of nine months, saying Lee had shown no sign of remorse and elected to claim trial, with significant resources expended in preparation for the trial.

In mitigation, Lee accepted the seriousness of speeding but said the absence of a guilty plea does not equate absence of remorse.

He said the trial was to test genuine issues in the evidence and that his decision not to testify should not be treated as an aggravating factor.

He also said a disqualification from driving would affect him professionally as he works in an accounting and professional corporate services firm and needed to drive daily for client-facing professional duties.

In sentencing, the judge noted that Lee had overtaken another vehicle on the road.

"There was clearly a risk that any impact with that other vehicle would have been disastrous, in view of the grossly excessive speed at which the accused was driving," he said.

He said that Lee was clearly aware that he had committed a serious speeding offence, since the first thing he said to his ex-girlfriend was that "the police are after me".

"Yet he chose to contest the charge and suggest that someone else may have driven the vehicle, instead of pleading guilty," said the judge.

"Although the accused was entitled to claim trial and elect not to give evidence in his defence, his failure to accept responsibility for his conduct and actions when the evidence against him was clear and indisputable, shows the accused's appalling lack of remorse."

He noted that Lee had not disputed his ex-girlfriend's testimony that he had told her the traffic police officer was not supposed to be on duty.

"The accused did not expect his speed to be tracked at that time of the day, and he committed the offence because he thought he would not be caught," said the judge.

"This was not a case of a momentary lapse of an offender driving just slightly above the speed limit. The fact that the accused was driving at 71kmh above the speed limit shows that this was a deliberate and conscious decision on his part.

"He was reckless to the potential death or serious injury that could have been caused to other road users in consequence of the extremely high speed that he was driving."

The judge noted a press release from the Ministry of Home Affairs on enhanced penalties for speeding offences, which stated that the number of speeding violations reached a 10-year high in 2024.

The total of almost 192,000 speeding violations in 2024 was an increase of 64.8 per cent compared with 2023. There was also a 43.8 per cent increase in speeding-related fatal accidents, from 32 cases in 2023 to 46 in 2024.

The enhanced penalties did not apply to Lee's case because it was committed in 2024, before the penalties took effect in January this year.

Lee paid the fine but lodged an appeal against the disqualification order of nine months.

Get our pick of top stories and thought-provoking articles in your inbox

Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories

Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app

We know it's a hassle to switch browsers but we want your experience with CNA to be fast, secure and the best it can possibly be.

To continue, upgrade to a supported browser or, for the finest experience, download the mobile app.

Upgraded but still having issues? Contact us