IF A High Court judge is right, drivers involved in hit-and-run accidents have routinely been slapped with two contradictory charges.

One is failure to stop after an accident, and the other is removing a vehicle involved in an accident without police permission.

Hit-and-run drivers typically face these two charges under the Road Traffic Act, as well as a third - the most serious - of failing to render assistance.

However, in February, High Court Judge Tay Yong Kwang ruled that failure to stop and removal of a vehicle are "mutually exclusive".

Referring to the hit-and-run appeal case before him, he said in court: "If the guy hasn't stopped, then how can he be accused of removing his car from the scene at the same time?"

If the Court of Appeal, which yesterday heard the Public Prosecutor's request for a definitive ruling, agrees with Justice Tay, it could mean one fewer charge for hit-and-run drivers in future.

In the original hearing before Justice Tay, a driver did not stop his BMW after rear-ending a motorcycle.

Although the judge dismissed the appeal, he set aside the man's conviction for removing his car and ordered the $1,000 fine to be refunded to him.

In his written judgment in April, Justice Tay said that implicit in the offence of removing a vehicle is that the vehicle in question is stationary at the accident scene.

"Put simply, in order to remove an object from point A, it must be at point A,"he said. But the BMW was never stationary at the scene.

In March, the Public Prosecutor had applied to refer the case to the Court of Appeal to decide on this issue.

Yesterday, Deputy Public Prosecutor Han Ming Kuang argued that the two offences are not mutually exclusive.

He said both offences can be made out if the driver did not stop his vehicle atonce after a serious accident, but did so at some distance away because he realised someone had witnessed the accident.

The DPP argued that the law does not require that the vehicle must have stopped before moving off.

He also argued that the two offences carry different objectives. Preserving evidence would require the "removal of a vehicle" charge.

On the other hand, an offender has to stop to provide particulars.The Court of Appeal will give its decision at a later date.