Public Prosecutor v Aw Tai Hock

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Steven Chong JA
• Judgment Date: 06 October 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] SGHC 240
• Plaintiff Counsel: Bhajanvir Singh and Gabriel Choong (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Date: 06 October 2017
• Docket Number: Magistrate’s Appeal No 5 of 2017
• Hearing Date: 23 August 2017
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing,Road Traffic Act,Appeal,Criminal Law,Statutory offences,Principles
• Year: 2017
• Defendant Counsel: The respondent in person.
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Citation: [2017] SGHC 240
• Published date: 11 October 2017

Steven Chong JA: Introduction

The respondent pleaded guilty to a charge of dangerous driving under s 64(1) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) (“the RTA”). The District Judge (“the Judge”) imposed a sentence of three months’ imprisonment and a disqualification of three years on all classes of driving licences. The Prosecution, who submitted for a deterrent sentence of at least five months’ imprisonment and three years’ disqualification in the court below,¹ appeals only as against the sentence of three months’ imprisonment. There is no cross-appeal by the respondent.

In brief, the Prosecution’s case on appeal is that taking into account both the harm (actual and potential) and the respondent’s high culpability, the sentence of three months’ imprisonment is manifestly inadequate.

In assessing harm and culpability, the court is suitably assisted and informed by the video footage of the entire incident which was captured on the respondent’s own in-vehicle video camera. The incident as depicted by the video replay is reminiscent of a typical car chase in movie sets. The difference is that here, no stuntman was involved. It is instead a video replay of the entire incident starting from the event which sparked the car chase till the collision between the vehicle which was being pursued by the respondent (“Andy’s vehicle”) and a stationary vehicle with the driver in the driver’s seat. The video replay bears witness to numerous violations of various road traffic regulations by the respondent, resulting in actual damage and injuries caused to other vehicles and their occupants as well as actual danger to other road users and pedestrians.

The entire car chase lasted about five minutes. It is apparent from the video replay that the respondent was intent on using his own vehicle to wreak damage on Andy’s vehicle and possibly personal injury on its occupants. In this judgment, it would neither be accurate nor appropriate to describe the occupants of Andy’s vehicle as the victims of the car chase as they were somewhat responsible in initially provoking the respondent (“the initial aggression”). The significance of the initial aggression to the sentencing of the respondent will be examined below at [47]–[51].

This judgment will judicially calibrate the appropriate sentences for the offence of dangerous driving under s 64(1) of the RTA with reference to the varying degrees of harm in juxtaposition with the different levels of culpability.

The undisputed material facts

I begin with the undisputed material facts which the respondent had admitted to below without qualification.

The respondent is a 56-year-old male Singaporean. At the material time, he was working as a taxi driver, driving vehicle SHB8877D (“the taxi”).

On the evening of 7 June 2015, the respondent and one Mohd Andy Bin Abdullah (“Andy”) had a dispute. On 8 June 2015, sometime before 3pm, Andy was at the carpark near his block in Pasir Ris when he saw the respondent in his taxi. Andy got into his car SGA1687Z, ie, Andy’s vehicle, and drove off, but observed the taxi tailing him. Andy called his friend, who asked Andy to drive to his place in Yishun so that together they could “teach [the respondent] a lesson”.²

Both the taxi and Andy’s vehicle then arrived at an open-air carpark in Yishun (“the Yishun carpark”) and were stopped some distance away from each other. While the respondent waited, he saw another man approaching Andy’s vehicle with a bag. The respondent then left, but Andy followed him in his vehicle with the other man now seated in the front passenger seat. Andy’s vehicle then cut in front of the taxi, whereupon Andy and his friend alighted and approached the taxi carrying long thin objects, believed to be a parang and a baton.

What ensued thereafter was essentially a car chase between the two vehicles, with first Andy’s vehicle chasing the taxi and thereafter the taxi chasing Andy’s vehicle. Andy and the other man also alighted from Andy’s vehicle and used the objects they carried to hit the sides of the taxi at one point. During the entire incident, the instances of dangerous driving by the respondent as captured in the charge are as follows: deliberately colliding thrice into the driver-side door of Andy’s vehicle; travelling at a fast speed inside the Yishun carpark; deliberately colliding into the rear of Andy’s vehicle when it slowed down ahead of a speed bump; making a wide left turn and travelling against the flow of traffic when exiting from the Yishun carpark; failing to give way to a pedestrian at a designated zebra crossing; making two unauthorised U-turns, with the first instance almost resulting in a collision with Andy’s vehicle; and failing to keep a proper lookout and almost colliding into the back of a van.

Throughout the entire episode, the respondent failed to slow down at 11 speed bumps and five “Stop” lines, ignored six “Slow” signs, almost collided with a lamp post, continued to pursue Andy even in a designated school zone, and only stopped the chase when Andy’s vehicle collided with another vehicle SKF484A (“the white car”) which overturned upon impact.

The driver of the white car suffered from a chest contusion and neck sprain, whilst Andy suffered from musculoskeletal injuries and was given four days’ medical leave.

The decision below

The Judge delivered her written grounds on 8 May 2017 in Public Prosecutor v Aw Tai Hock [2017] SGDC 131 (“the GD”).³

The Judge agreed with the Prosecution on “most of the aggravating factors” that were highlighted by the latter and that the custodial threshold in the present case was crossed, but could not agree that a deterrent sentence of at least five months’ imprisonment was warranted (GD at [11]–[12]). Out of the two precedents highlighted by the Prosecution, the Judge regarded the case of Public Prosecutor v Pang Chon Seng (case number E401-009766711) (“Pang”)⁴ as the more relevant reference (GD at [13]). The offender in Pang was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment and four years’ disqualification from all classes of driving licences.

However, the Judge found that the present case to be less aggravated than Pang because (a) the reaction of the respondent had to be understood in the context of Andy and his friend being aggressive and violent towards him; (b) this was not a typical road-bully or road-rage case given the genesis of the incident; (c) the consequences in the present case were less serious than in Pang where the offender’s dangerous actions on the expressway caused three separate traffic incidents involving a total of seven vehicles, one death and injuries to two others; (d) the respondent was a first-time offender unlike the offender in Pang who had traffic-related antecedents; and (d) the respondent was remorseful of what he had done (GD at [14]–[28]).

Thus, the Judge calibrated the sentence in Pang downwards and imposed a sentence of three months’ imprisonment and a disqualification of three years on the respondent. She was of the view that this sentence would be sufficient to send a strong deterrent message (GD at [29]).

The Prosecution’s case on appeal

On appeal, the Prosecution seeks to enhance the respondent’s sentence to at least five months’ imprisonment. The Prosecution does not appeal against the three-year disqualification order imposed.⁵

The Prosecution argues, in the main, that: The Judge failed to appreciate that the respondent demonstrated a most culpable form of dangerous driving. She did not adopt the appropriate framework for assessing an offender’s culpability in dangerous driving as laid out in recent cases such as Public Proseuctor v Koh Thiam Huat [2017] SGHC 123 (“Koh Thiam Huat”).⁶ The initial aggression that the Judge placed great weight on does not reduce the respondent’s culpability in his subsequent actions when the respondent pursued Andy deliberately.⁷ The Judge failed to consider the serious potential harm posed by the respondent’s conduct.⁸ The Judge failed to consider the entire permissible sentencing range; and a sentence towards the midpoint, as opposed to the lower end, of the custodial range is most appropriate in this case.⁹ The Judge erred in her consideration of Pang.¹⁰

I first set out the appropriate sentencing framework for dangerous driving offences, before addressing the present appeal.

The sentencing framework

Section 64(1) of the RTA reads as follows:

Reckless or dangerous driving

64.—(1) If any person drives a motor vehicle on a road recklessly, or at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the nature, condition and use of the road, and the amount of traffic which is actually at the time, or which might reasonably be expected to be, on the road, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both. [emphasis added]

The relevant sentencing considerations

In dangerous driving offences, the primary sentencing considerations are those of specific and general deterrence: see D’Rozario Pancratius Joseph v Public Prosecutor [2015] SGHC 46¹¹ at [27], as recently affirmed in Koh Thiam Huat¹² at [60].

The primary concern of general deterrence is evident from Parliament’s multiple upward revisions to the penalties prescribed for such offences. The range of penalties under s 64(1) of the RTA has been increased twice, in 1996 and again just this year in 2017, as follows:

Offender	Type of sentence	Before 10 May 1996	From 10 May 1996	From 20 June 2017
Maximum sentences
First-time	Fine	$1,000	$3,000	$5,000
Imprisonment

...