PP v Muhammad Rajis bin Abdullah

PP v Muhammad Rajis bin Abdullah

The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the registered medical practitioner in immediate charge had contemporaneously authorised the police requirement for a blood specimen under s71 RTA; absent that mandatory authorisation the police requirement was unlawful and the accused could not be convicted under s70(4).

Citation
[2026] SGDC 169
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Muhammad Rajis bin Abdullah
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
18 May 2026
Case Number
SC-903588-2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Road Traffic (road Traffic Act) / District Court Trial and Judgment (acquittal)
Outcome
Accused acquitted
Legal Topics
Failure to Provide Blood Specimen, Preliminary Breath Test, Protection of Hospital Patients (s71), Police Arrest Powers (s69), Authorisation by Registered Medical Practitioner
Source Language
English
Road Traffic Law Criminal Law Medical Law Statutory Interpretation Evidence Failure to Provide Blood Specimen Preliminary Breath Test Protection of Hospital Patients (s71) +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Muhammad Rajis bin Abdullah

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Road Traffic (road Traffic Act) / District Court Trial and Judgment (acquittal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the registered medical practitioner in immediate charge had authorised the taking of a blood specimen under s71 RTA contemporaneously with the police requirement
  2. 2 Whether the accused was validly arrested under s69(5)(a) RTA
  3. 3 Whether conditions in s70(3) were satisfied to require a blood specimen

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the registered medical practitioner in immediate charge had contemporaneously authorised the police requirement for a blood specimen under s71 RTA; absent that mandatory authorisation the police requirement was unlawful and the accused could not be convicted under s70(4).

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted

Orders

  • Accused acquitted of the charge under s 70(4)(a) read with ss 67(1) and 67(2)(a) of the Road Traffic Act; charge dismissed