Kwan Weiguang v PP

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Aedit Abdullah J
• Judgment Date: 25 May 2022
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 9181/2021/01
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Kwan Weiguang

and

Public Prosecutor

[2022] SGHC 121

Aedit Abdullah J

Magistrate's Appeal No 9181/2021/01

General Division of the High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Principles — Disqualification orders — District judge imposing disqualification order of 15 months' duration and fine of $1,600 — Appellant submitting that court should set out new sentencing framework due to extensive legislative amendments — Whether disqualification order imposed was manifestly excessive — Whether sentencing framework for disqualification order was necessary

Road Traffic — Offences — Reckless driving — Appellant driving in dangerous manner by repeatedly changing lanes and braking abruptly in front of another vehicle — Offence bearing elements of road rage — Whether court could compel offender to retake and pass prescribed test of competence to drive by adjusting disqualification order period to one year or longer — Section 43(1)(b) Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed)

Held, allowing the appeal:

(1) While consistency in sentencing was important, it was not the controlling or determinative factor in every situation. The key concern was that justice had to be done in the specific case at hand when selecting the appropriate sentence. Judicial discretion underpinned sentencing, and frameworks should not be adopted as rigid formulae and for their own sake. The proposed framework by the appellant would be anathema to the idea of individualised justice as it was inappropriate to derive a framework based on information gleaned from the Sentencing Information and Research Repository without knowing the factual matrix in those cases: at [35], [37] and [40].

(2) No sentencing framework was laid down in this case. Sentencing frameworks should only be imposed when there were sufficient cases and should not be imposed a priori generally. This would ensure that a framework was set out only when there was a sufficiently clear sentencing pattern which emerged. There was a dearth of reported cases for dangerous driving offences under s 64(2C)(a) of the RTA after the enactment of the 2019 RTA amendments. Additionally, the court would only be able to pronounce on the framework for the disqualification order but not the main punishment to be imposed as the appeal was only against the disqualification order. The framework set out, if any, would be incomplete and this was unsatisfactory: at [44], [46] and [48].

(3) Nevertheless, while not aiming for absolute consistency, some sentencing parameters and factors to be considered could be provided for determining the appropriate disqualification order when an offence was punishable under s 64(2C)(a) of the RTA. For first-time traffic offenders with a clean driving record, the disqualification period should be set at 12 months or below. This was assuming that the degree of potential harm posed to other road users was relatively low. However, the disqualification period should exceed 12 months and could go up to 24 months and beyond where there was very dangerous behaviour demonstrated by the offender, or conduct showing a disregard for traffic rules, etiquette and the interests of other road users: at [52], [53], [56] and [57].

(4) The circumstances of the commission of the offence which might have increased the danger posed to road users during the incident were relevant. This would include any acts endangering safety as well as the manner of driving, eg, exhibiting poor control of the vehicle, being apprehended for speeding, or driving dangerously or recklessly. Other relevant circumstances included driving when the traffic volume was heavy, driving within residential or school zones, driving a heavy vehicle, etc. The extent of any property damage caused and the potential harm that could have resulted from the act of dangerous or reckless driving would also be relevant: at [65] to [67].

(5) The competence of the driver on the road was relevant, as well as the attitude towards other road users. Where there was a blatant disregard for the safety of other road users and a lack of personal responsibility, it was within the public interest to remove such a driver from the roads for a substantial period. The presence of any violence or threats of violence which were characteristic of road rage situations might require a longer period of disqualification. It was also particularly aggravating when the offender had decided to pursue a personal vendetta or to settle a score from a driving-related dispute by seeking to force a confrontation with the other party: at [68] to [70].

(6) There was no necessary link between the period of the disqualification order and the fine and/or imprisonment sentence imposed. The court might calibrate the disqualification order separately. It might be appropriate to impose a longer term of disqualification even if the fine and/or imprisonment sentence imposed was relatively lenient: at [73].

(7) The primary purpose of s 43(1)(b) of the RTA was to ensure that the disqualified offender would retain his driving competency if he was disqualified from driving for one year or longer as his “skills are likely to have deteriorated” in that period of being away from the wheel. Thus, it might not be entirely apt for the court to calibrate the disqualification period just to reach one year (or more) in order to compel the offender to retake the driving test as part of the appropriate punishment. The retest was never meant to function as an additional punitive element. It was inappropriate to tweak the disqualification order to reach or exceed a year just to compel the offender to retake the test to learn “safe driving”, as this was never the intention of Parliament: at [79] and [83].

(8) There were several aggravating factors here. There was a fair degree of potential harm as the road traffic was not so negligible. The rapid changing of lanes and sudden braking of the taxi could have caused a collision. The risk was accentuated as it was drizzling and the road surface was wet. The manner of driving by the appellant was dangerous and he had driven aggressively with a disregard for the safety of other road users. The offence bore elements of road rage and the appellant had no regard for the concept of shared usage of roads. Where road rage was involved, and the threat to safety was anything more than fleeting or momentary, it was doubtful that anything less than 12 months' disqualification would be a suitable response: at [89], [90], [92] and [93].

(9) Regarding the mitigating factors, no weight was given to the fact that hardship would be caused to the appellant's family by imposing the disqualification order as his circumstances were not exceptional enough to warrant leniency. Weight was given to the fact that the appellant was a first-time offender with a clean driving record and that he had pleaded guilty. Taking all the circumstances into account, a disqualification order of 12 months' duration was appropriate to fulfil the objectives of punishment, protection of the public and deterrence: at [94] to [96] and [99].

Case(s) referred to

ADF v PP [2010] 1 SLR 874 (refd)

Ang Jwee Herng v PP [2001] 1 SLR(R) 720; [2001] 2 SLR 474 (refd)

Brian Hannah Neill v Hugh Ross Annan 1990 SCCR 454 (refd)

CCG v PP [2022] SGCA 19 (refd)

Chua Ya Zi Sandy v PP [2021] SGHC 204 (refd)

Dinesh Singh Bhatia s/o Amarjeet Singh v PP [2005] 3 SLR(R) 1; [2005] 3 SLR 1 (refd)

Ding Si Yang v PP [2015] 2 SLR 229 (refd)

Edwin s/o Suse Nathen v PP [2013] 4 SLR 1139 (refd)

Goik Soon Guan v PP [2015] 2 SLR 655 (refd)

Jali bin Mohd Yunos v PP [2014] 4 SLR 1059 (refd)

Koh Yong Chiah v PP [2017] 3 SLR 447 (refd)

Lai Oei Mui Jenny v PP [1993] 2 SLR(R) 406; [1993] 3 SLR 305 (refd)

Mohd Akebal s/o Ghulam Jilani v PP [2020] 1 SLR 266 (refd)

Neo Chuan Sheng v PP [2020] 5 SLR 410 (not folld)

Ng Kean Meng Terence v PP [2017] 2 SLR 449 (refd)

PP v Aw Tai Hock [2017] 5 SLR 1141 (refd)

PP v BRH [2020] SGHC 14 (refd)

PP v Chiam Liang Kee [1960] MLJ 163 (refd)

PP v Fizul Asrul bin Efandi [2018] 5 SLR 475 (refd)

PP v Koh Thiam Huat [2017] 4 SLR 1099 (refd)

PP v Lim Yee Hua [2018] 3 SLR 1106 (refd)

PP v Ong Heng Chua [2018] 5 SLR 388 (refd)

PP v Pang Shuo [2016] 3 SLR 903 (refd)

PP v Ryan Asyraf bin Mohammad A'zman [2022] SGDC 15 (distd)

PP v Sindok Trading Pte Ltd [2022] SGHC 52 (refd)

PP v Tan Kok Ming Michael [2019] 5 SLR 926 (refd)

PP v Wang Jianliang [2019] SGMC 27 (refd)

R v Buckley [1989] Crim LR 386 (refd)

R v Donnelly [1975] 1 WLR 390 (refd)

Sivakumar s/o Rajoo v PP [2002] 1 SLR(R) 265; [2002] 2 SLR 73 (refd)

Stansilas Fabian Kester v PP [2017] 5 SLR 755 (refd)

Takaaki Masui v PP [2021] 4 SLR 160 (refd)

Tan Cheng Bock v AG [2017] 2 SLR 850 (folld)

Teo Seng Tiong v PP [2021] 2 SLR 642 (refd)

William George Gordon Kemp Middleton v Graeme Napier 1997 SCCR 669 (refd)

Wu Zhi Yong v PP [2022] 4 SLR 587 (refd)

Facts

This was an appeal against the disqualification order imposed on the appellant, Mr Kwan Weiguang. On 16 December 2020, at or about 8.34pm, the appellant was driving his motor taxi along Ayer Rajah Expressway towards the direction of Marina Coastal Expressway. The other party involved was Lo Heng Sung (alias Sani bin Abdullah) (“Lo”). On Keppel Road, Lo had high-beamed his lights at the appellant from behind. In response, the appellant tapped on his brakes whilst driving ahead and this forced Lo to break quickly to avoid an accident. When Lo tried to avoid the appellant by changing lanes, the appellant would prevent this by changing to that same lane. This lane changing happened on four occasions in total, and the incident lasted for ten seconds. On the final occasion, the appellant stopped his taxi in the middle of the road and alighted from the vehicle to confront Lo. At the material time, it was drizzling, the road surface was wet, traffic volume was light, and visibility was clear.

The appellant pleaded guilty...