Singapore legislation
Section 48
Section 48
Powers to demand information about driver
(1)
An authorised officer or outsourced enforcement officer, or a police officer or public path warden who is acting in the execution of duty may require any person whom the authorised officer, outsourced enforcement officer, police officer or public path warden believes on reasonable grounds to have had possession or control of a vehicle on a particular occasion to give any information which may lead to the identification of an individual —
who was the driver or rider of the vehicle on any occasion that the driver or rider is alleged or is suspected to be guilty of an offence under this Act; or
who had possession or control of the vehicle on any occasion that the driver or rider is alleged or is suspected to be guilty of an offence under this Act.
(2)
The person, when required by an authorised officer or outsourced enforcement officer, or a police officer or public path warden to do so under subsection (1), must give to the authorised officer, outsourced enforcement officer, police officer or public path warden (as the case may be), within 14 days after being so required, the information required under that subsection.
(3)
A requirement under subsection (1) may be made orally or in writing, and require any information to be furnished under that subsection to be in writing signed by the person required to furnish the information.
(4)
A person who fails to give in accordance with subsection (2) the information required of the person under subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction —
to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to both; but(b)where the person is a repeat offender, to a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.
(5)
However, it is a defence in any proceedings for an offence under subsection (4) where the accused proves, on a balance of probabilities, that the accused did not know, and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained, the information required under subsection (1).
(6)
In any proceedings for an offence under subsection (4), an accused which is a company, a partnership or an unincorporated body is not to be treated as having proved that the accused did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained the information required unless the accused also proves, on a balance of probabilities, that —
it had kept a proper and accurate record containing prescribed particulars of each occasion on which it permits any individual to ride or drive a vehicle —
whether or not the individual is a director, member, partner, officer, employee or agent of the accused or otherwise; and
whether or not the individual is permitted to ride or drive the vehicle in the course of the individual’s employment with the accused or otherwise; but(b)the record shows no individual having been permitted by the accused to ride or drive the vehicle at or about the time of the alleged offence.