Innocent until proven guilty. That's the law. It's fair. It's logical.

But when emotions are involved and innocent lives have been lost, the line between guilt and innocence before conviction blurs.

Voices are raised, pressure is applied.

That a driver still be allowed on the road after the death of a woman in the car he was driving has led to public outrage.

On Monday, Regan Lee Da Wen, 26, was charged with causing the death of a car sales agent by reckless driving.

The reaction among Netizens was a common one. It has been an 18-month wait to see enforcement action in the death of Ms Angelia He Xueli, 22.

Ms He was in the Mazda MX-5 that Lee was test-driving on 29 Oct 2005. She broke her neck on impact when the car crashed and died in hospital later. (See report on facing page.)

But why, asked Netizens, was Lee allowed to drive during the 18 months while the accident was being investigated? What of public safety while the law takes its course?

What outraged them even further was that Lee was apparently shopping for another fast car after the tragic accident.

OUTRAGE ONLINE

The Straits Times reported this month that Mr Lee had declared in a car forum posting on 21 Mar that he was undecided between a Volkswagen Golf GTI and a Subaru WRX STI-S.

The New Paper reported how furious Netizens did their own detective work and dug up his photo, handphone number, the company he works for, and the name of the condo he lives in. They then spammed him.

They wanted action.

But the law is clear: It does not allow for an alleged offender's licence to be suspended before he has been charged in court.

This is reflected in the Road Traffic Act as well: a person's licence can only be suspended after he has been charged in court.

However, some lawyers were still surprised at the police suspending Lee's licence when he was charged on Monday.

They told The New Paper this was unusual because a person?s driving licence is normally suspended after he has been convicted.

Mr Lim Kia Tong, 54, said: "In my 27 years of practising law, this is the first time I have come across a case where the person's licence has been suspended before conviction.

"The police is sending a very clear message to drivers who drive dangerously, leading to loss of life or serious injury."

Mr Lim said such a suspension, which is allowed under the Road Traffic Act, is enforced 'under special circumstances'.

Here's where the question of public safety is raised: Shouldn't a person involved in an accident that leads to death have his driving licence suspended even before he is charged?

If the police have the power to suspend his licence before he is convicted (but only after he's charged in court), shouldn't such discretionary powers be extended to before the case goes to court?

Nine out of 10 lawyers who spoke to The New Paper felt the law should not be changed.

The reason: It would be convicting the accused before all evidence has been heard.

PRESUMED INNOCENT

As lawyer Gloria James, 38, pointed out, it's not the driver's fault that he is allowed to continue driving after the accident.

"You are not assumed to be guilty at that point in time.

"It won't be fair to the person because you are saying he is guilty without the investigation being concluded and without the coroner's inquiry having been completed.

"The findings might turn up some interesting facts not known previously."

Vital pieces of evidence may include the condition of the car, road conditions, and whether other drivers were involved, lawyers said.

Lawyer Peter Low, 55, said a car might have suffered a mechanical fault or the road might have been slippery.

Such factors may absolve the driver of some or all of the blame for the accident, he said.

"Unless all this is brought before the court, we will not know. So, it's not fair to punish him first," Mr Low said. "He is not guilty yet."

A lawyer, who did not want to be named, said other factors may include the speed of the car, the experience of the driver and the type of car being driven.

"It's never that simple," he said. Even after practising for 34 years, and handling traffic accident cases, he expressed surprise regarding the suspension of Lee's licence.

"It's the first time I have heard of such a case. Other lawyers have also said it was unusual."

Another lawyer felt such a move could open up a Pandora's box.

Mr Mark Goh, 40, said: "If the police can suspend a licence without due process of the court, then you are setting a dangerous precedent.

"You are giving an agent of authority the power to revoke your rights.

"Driving is a right. It might be your licence (being revoked) today, and something else the next day."

Mr Goh, too, was surprised that Lee's licence had been suspended.

He added: "The public outcry must have been so great for the police to do it. But by doing this, you are pre-judging him."

Mr RS Bajwa, 57, a senior civil and criminal litigation lawyer, was all for suspending a person's licence before he has been charged in court.

His reason: Public safety.

"The police and the authorities should be able to exercise their discretion if they believe a person has been reckless.

"But it must be exercised with great care and caution so it is not abused.

"The investigation officer must be very sure before he recommends it and there should be a tribunal to make the decision."

ONLY TEMPORARY

He added that the suspension of a licence could be temporary and would not mean a person was guilty.

"After all, public safety is the main priority, and the person suspended should also be allowed to appeal," he said.

Police spokesman Cheryl Foo said the Road Traffic Act allows the police to suspend the licence of an offender immediately in cases with clear evidence of aggravating circumstances, involving serious injury or death due to rash, reckless or drink driving - but only after the offender is charged in court.

She said it was inappropriate to comment further on Lee's case as court proceedings are ongoing.