Veteran lawyer jailed for driving drunk into railings, lying to police that he was not the driver

Three other witnesses also helped to get him to wait for the police to arrive. Lam repeatedly tried to convince two of the witnesses to leave him alone and let him go, but they refused and asked him to explain himself to the police.

Traffic police arrived and found that Lam was reeking of alcohol, had a flushed face and bloodshot eyes, and an unsteady gait.

Lam admitted that he was intoxicated. He failed a breathalyser test and was taken to the traffic police headquarters where a breath analysing device test found 61 microgrammes of alcohol in every 100ml of Lam’s breath. This was above the limit of 35 microgrammes per 100 ml of breath.

When interviewed at the incident location, Lam claimed that an unknown friend had driven him home while he fell asleep in the back seat.

He alleged that he saw the unknown friend run away from the driver’s seat. Lam refused to provide any details of this friend, claiming that he did not know his name or number.

Acting on this information, traffic police resources were directed to search the vicinity of Lompang Road for the friend that Lam was talking about, but to no avail.

Lam lied a second time when interviewed by the investigating officer at the traffic police headquarters at about 5am on Apr 7, 2024.

He again claimed that someone else had driven him home, but could not provide a name or even the gender of this person. He also could not confirm whether the driver was part of the group he was drinking with.

This time, Lam claimed he was a passenger seated in the front passenger seat and that he had fallen asleep after boarding the vehicle.

He said that the car was already stuck at the road divider when he woke up and the unknown driver had already left.

He added that the traffic police officers at the scene had tried to get him to admit that he was the driver, but he denied being the driver. He said he could not find the driver, but offered to “check further” on who it might be.

Lam also said he was a practising lawyer at Templars Law and that he practised “all kinds of law including criminal law”, and that he was aware that providing a false statement was an offence.

SENTENCING ARGUMENTS

Deputy Public Prosecutor Jonathan Tan sought six to 10 weeks’ jail, a fine of between S$15,000 and S$18,000, and a driving ban of 66 to 72 months.

He said that Lam was previously convicted of drink driving in 2006 and had a speeding conviction from 1999. He also has compounded offences of speeding and failing to conform to a red light signal in 2020 and 2024 respectively.

Defence lawyer Ramesh Tiwary said his client’s previous convictions are “somewhat dated” and urged the judge to consider Lam’s “contributions to society”, which are “not few”.

“He is someone who without doubt has spent a lot of his spare time contributing in various ways, and I daresay, your honour, that there are not many practitioners in private practice who have devoted so much of their time to give back to society as my client in this case,” said Mr Tiwary.

He said there were no injuries caused, and his client had made restitution for the property damage.

“He knows he has made a mistake and he is very remorseful for what he has done,” said Mr Tiwary. “And I think it has left an indelible mark on him because … he ensures now that if he goes out on social gatherings, he does not drink alcohol.”

He argued that the charges for lying to the police were something “wholly out of character” for Lam, who has worked and supported the system and “is not a man given … to try and get around the system”.

Mr Tiwary said Lam feels his fall from grace “more sharply”.

While the prosecution said that Lam had maintained his false statements for 17 months and never came clean until he indicated his intention to plead guilty, Mr Tiwary said Lam did not actively maintain them, but merely did not correct them.

He said that it was not an aggravating factor, but the absence of a mitigating factor, as if Lam had admitted to the false statements, it would have been a mitigating factor.

He also said that he did not think that being a lawyer, knowing criminal law, should make the sentence higher than if Lam was a civil lawyer not knowing criminal law.

“The best of criminal lawyers makes mistakes,” said Mr Tiwary. “Everybody makes mistakes.”

In response, the prosecutor said that Lam did not recant or retract the falsehood although there were “opportunities along the way”.

When the judge gave Lam a chance to speak for himself, Lam said that he was at the court’s disposal and asked for “compassion”.

The judge said there was potential harm as Lam had driven without due care and attention in a residential area with a number of pedestrians around.

However, he noted that there were fewer road users at that time.

He said that the driving ban period should be longer than the mandatory period given Lam’s post-incident attempts to escape and his related past convictions.

His alcohol level this time was also higher than his past conviction in 2006, and there is a trend of increasing danger posed to the public, said the judge.

He added that Lam had “little choice but to plead guilty” given the overwhelming evidence against him. He also noted that Lam had doubled down on his lie and caused a clear wastage of public resources.

As for the relevance of Lam’s public service and contributions to sentencing, the judge said that Lam “has gone above and beyond” in these aspects.

In his volunteer work over the decades, he has run legal clinics in Sengkang and Punggol, among other things.

However, the judge said he placed “no weight” on this. He also commended the public-spiritedness of the eyewitnesses at the scene. 

Lam chose to begin his jail term immediately.

CNA has contacted the Law Society of Singapore on whether any action will be taken against Lam.