Cheong Wai Keong v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 13 July 2005
• Neutral Citation: [2005] SGHC 126
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 36 of 2005
• Date: 13 July 2005
• Published date: 14 July 2005
• Year: 2005
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ramesh Tiwary (Edmond Pereira and Partners)
• Citation: [2005] SGHC 126
• Defendant Counsel: Ravneet Kaur (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Sections 67(1), 67(2) Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed),Whether fact appellant driving short distance and unlikely to come into contact with other road users constituting special reason to reduce period of disqualification prescribed by law,Appellant pleading guilty to one charge of drink driving,Appellant driving from road to nearby car park,Offences,Drink driving,Road Traffic

13 July 2005

Yong Pung How CJ:

1 This appeal was against the decision of District Judge Ronald Gwee, in which Cheong Wai Keong (“the appellant”) pleaded guilty to one charge of driving whilst having so much alcohol in his body that the proportion of alcohol in his breath exceeded the prescribed limit. This is an offence under s 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) (“the RTA”) and punishable under ss 67(1) and (2). The appellant was convicted and sentenced to a fine of $2,300 with 23 days’ imprisonment in default, and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for a period of 12 months. He appealed only against the sentence.

The facts

2 The appellant admitted without qualification to the Statement of Facts. It recited that on 24 June 2005 at about 7.55am, Sergeant Kelvin Chee Hau (“Sgt Chee”) attended to a dispute at No 10 Ubi Crescent, Ubi Tech-Park Building (“the Tech-Park”). At the scene, the appellant informed Sgt Chee that he had earlier driven his motor car SDV 7890M a short distance along Ubi Crescent. His intention had been to park his vehicle inside the Tech-Park but he had been stopped from doing so by the security guard. As the appellant smelt strongly of alcohol and had an unsteady gait, Sgt Chee administered a breathalyser test on him. The appellant failed the test. He was subsequently placed under arrest and taken to the Traffic Police Division for a Breath Evidential Analyser test. The test result showed that the appellant’s breath specimen contained 87 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath. This greatly exceeded the prescribed limit of 35 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath.

3 The appellant had had several previous criminal convictions, but only two were for traffic offences. These two traffic offences were not offences under s 67(1) of the RTA, nor were they offences that would trigger s 67A, the section providing for enhanced penalties for offenders with previous convictions under certain sections of the RTA. The punishment prescribed for the first conviction of an offence under s 67(1) of the RTA is a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $5,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months. In addition, under s 67(2) of the RTA, disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 12 months is mandatory, unless “special reasons” are shown to the court and the court thinks fit to order otherwise.

4 In a mitigation plea on behalf of the appellant, counsel for the appellant submitted that, as the appellant had driven only a short distance and in circumstances such that he was unlikely to be brought into contact with other road users, these amounted to special reasons such that the appellant should be disqualified for a period shorter than the mandatory minimum of 12 months. It was submitted that on the night before the date of the offence, the appellant had parked his car by the side of the road, along double yellow lines. He had consumed alcohol with his friends, and had no intention of driving his car that night after having parked it. The next morning, he was informed that one of his workers who was at the Tech-Park was having a problem, and he was asked to proceed to the Tech-Park to see if he could solve the problem.

5 It was when the appellant reached the location that he realised that his car was parked along double yellow lines, and that it might cause obstruction to other road users if he left it there for the day. The appellant therefore decided to move the car to the car park which was just next to the road where the car was parked. He drove a distance of about 25 feet from where he had parked the car to the beginning of the driveway into the car park, and about another 35 feet along the driveway to the barrier of the car park. The appellant contended that as he drove his car at 7.55am, there was no traffic on that road and no one was using the short stretch of the road at that time. Further, he had only driven along the side of the road before turning left into the car park, and had had no intention of driving the car after that.

The decision below

6 The trial judge held that the circumstances surrounding the appellant’s driving of the car did not amount to special...