Insufficient evidence to show driver caused accident that killed delivery rider, police tell Coroner’s court

According to his girlfriend, she was playing with her phone in the car and did not see what was happening outside the car. She recalled hearing a loud collision “the next moment”.

The accident dented the electric bike’s frame and misaligned the handlebar. There was also minimal damage to its rear, suggesting no rear-end collision.

The Foodpanda delivery bag was dislodged because of the collision and it fell near the end of the slip road.

The coroner found that it was not possible to tell how fast the car or the electric bike were travelling at the time of collision.

Mr Seet was taken to hospital but was unresponsive with no signs of life. He was pronounced dead sometime after midnight on Sep 28, 2022, with an autopsy certifying his cause of death as head injury.

Mr Teo’s breathalyser test was done at about 12.25am on Sep 28, 2022, and the breath alcohol test at about 3.20am at traffic police headquarters.

The investigation officer said that Mr Teo, his girlfriend and the male colleague were initially uncooperative about identifying the driver.

The male colleague had gone down to the accident scene despite being dropped off at home, after receiving a call from Mr Teo about the accident.

The decision was made to arrest all three and there was a need to get three police vehicles to transport them. At the traffic police headquarters, the trio were subjected to medical checks to determine if they were fit for detention.

They were then registered, with DNA samples taken, and administered breath alcohol tests only after this.

CONCERNS OF MR SEET’S FATHER

During the inquiry, Mr Seet’s father raised several concerns. He asserted that the collision was a direct rear-end collision, contrary to the traffic police’s findings.

He also suggested that the car was travelling in excess of the 50kmh road speed limit and that if it had not been going so fast, the collision would not have resulted in a fatality.

He asked if a speed analysis could be done based on the location of the electric bike, the body and the suggested “point of impact” based on the location of the Foodpanda delivery bag.

In response, the investigation officer said there was no evidence or footage to show that the car was travelling at an excessive speed prior to the accident.

The presence of original footage evidence “is crucial” to determine the accurate speed of each involved vehicle, the traffic police stated.

To reconstruct the accident scene without footage evidence, there would be “a lot of variables” of what could likely occur, and would likely result in inconclusive findings, the investigation officer added.

Mr Seet’s father also questioned if Mr Teo’s alcohol level could have been higher than the legal limit when he was at the accident site, based on the number of glasses of beer he drank and his breath alcohol test done at the traffic police headquarters.

All three involved parties – Mr Teo, his girlfriend and his male colleague – had failed handheld breathalyser tests at the accident scene.

However, when the trio took breath analysing device tests at the traffic police headquarters, Mr Teo’s reading was 16 micrograms per 100ml of breath, which is below the legal limit.

His girlfriend had 67 micrograms per 100ml of breath, while his colleague had 97 micrograms per 100ml of breath, both over the legal limit for driving.

Mr Seet’s father noted that Mr Teo’s girlfriend had consumed three to four glasses of beer and the colleague had five to six glasses, and questioned whether the absorption rate of alcohol could differ so much.

In response, the traffic police stated that the three people were subjected to alcohol breath tests according to police protocol, and that absorption rate of alcohol in a person can vary due to factors like age, gender and ethnicity.

Whether the person consumed alcohol with an empty stomach or food also plays a part.

Mr Seet’s father also said that Mr Teo had called his colleague instead of calling for an ambulance and said the arguments among the trio at the scene and their alleged lack of cooperation with the police revealed a lack of remorse.

In response, the investigation officer stated that while the trio consumed alcohol, they were “not extremely drunk”. Mr Teo did stop after the accident but did not call the ambulance as a passerby had already done so.

While Mr Teo had allegedly provided a false statement, he came clean in his second one, said the officer.

CORONER’S FINDINGS

In his findings, the coroner said the Coroners Act states that the purpose of a coroner’s inquiry is to ascertain the identity of the deceased and how, when and where he died.

The Act makes it “very clear” that the court is not to determine any question of criminal, civil or disciplinary liability, said the coroner.

“Whether a third party should be charged for an offence connected with the death of another person is a question that is exclusively to be determined by the Attorney-General’s Chambers in conjunction with the prosecuting agency, in this case the traffic police. It would be incorrect for me to provide any input on this,” said State Coroner Nakhoda.

He said the accident sadly resulted in the death of a young father who had his entire future ahead of him.

While waiting to start his new career, he supplemented his income as a food delivery rider, “undoubtedly, to ensure that he could provide for his young family”.

The coroner said he strongly recommended that anyone who consumes three to five glasses of beer within a two-hour period should not drive a vehicle, but should make other travel arrangements.

While the coroner found that a considerable period had elapsed since Mr Teo claimed to have finished drinking alcohol at 10pm, and when his breath alcohol test was taken at 3.25am the next day, he said it would be “speculative” to state that he would failed the test had it been done earlier.

He found that Mr Teo was the driver of the car at the time of the collision, based not just on his subsequent admission that he was the driver, but on the evidence of a witness, who did not see the accident itself but saw a male person exiting from the driver’s side. 

According to court records, Teo faces two charges for claiming he was not the driver of the car, but that his male colleague had been driving instead. He allegedly repeated this lie at the scene of the accident and at traffic police headquarters.

He is slated to plead guilty in December. If convicted of obstructing justice, he can be jailed for up to seven years, fined, or both.

If found guilty of giving false information to a public servant, he can be jailed for up to two years, fined, or both.