Public Prosecutor v Lim Choon Teck

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chan Seng Onn J
• Judgment Date: 14 October 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] SGHC 265
• Plaintiff Counsel: Prem Raj Prabakaran and Tan Ee Kuan (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Docket Number: Magistrate’s Appeal No 9149 of 2015
• Date: 14 October 2015
• Hearing Date: 18 September 2015
• Subject Matter: Sentencing,Criminal Law,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Appeals,Hurt,Offences
• Published date: 16 October 2015
• Citation: [2015] SGHC 265
• Defendant Counsel: The respondent in person.
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2015

Chan Seng Onn J: Introduction

The Public Prosecutor (“Prosecution”) brought the present appeal on the ground that the sentence imposed on the respondent, Lim Choon Teck, was manifestly excessive. I believe that this is the first time the Prosecution has appealed against a sentence on this ground.

The respondent pleaded guilty and was sentenced to eight weeks’ imprisonment for one charge under s 336(a) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the Penal Code”) on 7 September 2015. His sentence was backdated to the date of his arrest, viz, 1 September 2015. I heard the appeal on an expedited basis on 18 September 2015 and reduced the respondent’s sentence to three weeks’ imprisonment. I now set out my grounds of decision.

Background facts

The respondent is a 35-year-old Singaporean male. On 17 May 2015 at or about 7.23pm, the respondent collided into a 69-year-old woman (“the victim”) when he was cycling on his non-motorised bicycle along a narrow pavement within a bus stop at Ang Mo Kio Avenue 8. The respondent was cycling at an “unsafe speed [and] could not stop his bicycle”¹ so as to avoid the victim who was walking with her husband towards the bus stop from a sheltered walkway. Notably, the respondent’s view of pedestrians approaching the bus stop from the walkway was blocked by a board that was present at the bus stop. The victim landed on her outstretched right arm, suffering fractures to her right upper arm and wrist.

The respondent stopped his bicycle after he collided into the victim. At the request of the victim’s husband, the respondent handed over his identification card to the victim’s husband for him to record the particulars of the respondent; however, before the victim’s husband could record “all of his details”,² the respondent took back his identification card and sped off on his bicycle. The victim was then conveyed by ambulance to the Khoo Teck Puat Hospital. In the present appeal, Mr Prem Raj Prabakaran (“the DPP”) submitted on behalf of the Prosecution. The DPP informed the Court that the respondent was located by the police based on the particulars that the victim’s husband had managed to take down.

The respondent was initially charged for causing grievous hurt to the victim by doing an act so rashly as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others under s 338(a) of the Penal Code. Pursuant to s 320(g) of the Penal Code, a “fracture or dislocation of a bone” would amount to “grievous hurt” within the meaning of s 338(a) of the Penal Code.

As noted at [2] above, the Prosecution decided to proceed instead on a reduced charge under s 336(a) of the Penal Code which provides as follows:

Punishment for act which endangers life or the personal safety of others

336. Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished — (a) in the case of a rash act, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 months, or with fine which may extend to $2,500, or with both; or

…

I pause to set out the charge to which the respondent pleaded guilty to and was convicted and sentenced on (“the Charge”):

You … are charged that you, on 17 May 2015, at or about 7.23 p.m., in the vicinity of bus stop 54321, located along Ang Mo Kio Avenue 8, near Block 354 Ang Mo Kio Street 32, in Singapore, did an act so rashly as to endanger the personal safety of others, to wit, by cycling on the pavement near the said bus stop at an unsafe speed, when your view of pedestrians approaching the bus stop from the walkway connecting the bus stop and Block 354 was obscured, resulting in a collision with [the victim], which caused the said [victim] to sustain an oblique fracture of the neck of right humerus, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 336(a) of the [Penal Code] .

[emphasis added]

There are two limbs to an offence under s 336(a) of the Penal Code. The offender may be charged for doing a rash act so as to (i) endanger human life (“Endangering Life Limb”); or (ii) the personal safety of others (“Personal Safety Limb”). The limb under which the offender was charged and convicted on is relevant towards determining where along the sentencing spectrum the offender should be placed in relation to an offence under s 336(a) of the Penal Code. In the present case, the Charge states that the respondent did an act “so rashly as to endanger the personal safety of others”.

Before I discuss the substance of the present appeal, I make a few observations: The speed at which the respondent was cycling prior to the collision was not specified. Nevertheless, the respondent admitted without qualification to the Statement of Facts (“SOF”) that he was cycling at an “unsafe speed”. While the SOF seems to suggest, at first blush, that the board at the bus stop blocked the respondent’s view by reason of being positioned perpendicular to the direction of his motion, I note that the photographs of the bus stop and the board adduced at the hearing of the appeal by the DPP without objections from the respondent showed that the board was, in reality, positioned to the right hand side of the respondent and parallel to the direction of his motion. While the board might not have blocked the respondent’s view of the pavement ahead, it blocked his view of pedestrians approaching the pavement from the sheltered walkway.

The decision below

At the hearing below, the Prosecution urged the court to impose “a short custodial sentence of least a two weeks’ [imprisonment]”³ on the respondent. The Prosecution argued that a custodial sentence was warranted in the light of the following aggravating factors: the respondent’s riding of his bicycle on the pavement was itself a breach of r 28(1) of the Road Traffic Rules (Cap 276, R20, 1999 Rev Ed) (“the RTR”); the respondent’s riding of his bicycle at an “unsafe speed” so near the bus stop was especially dangerous as the respondent’s view of approaching pedestrians was obscured; the collision between the respondent’s bicycle and the victim caused her to sustain “grievous hurt”, in the form of fractures; and although the respondent gave some of his particulars to the victim’s husband after the collision, he did not assist the victim or wait for an ambulance.

The District Judge (“DJ”) sentenced the respondent to eight weeks’ imprisonment. The DJ released her grounds of decision on 17 September 2015 (see Public Prosecutor v Lim Choon Teck [2015] SGMC 30 (“the DJ’s GD”)). The pertinent parts of the DJ’s GD are reproduced below: 15 I would have viewed it differently if the Accused had remained with the victim and [her husband] until the police or ambulance arrived. This incident occurred at night and the victim and her husband were elderly persons. I believe it would have afforded them some measures [sic] of security and comfort if the Accused had remained with them instead of speeding off. He callously sped off to avoid the consequences of his rash act and abandoned the elderly and vulnerable couple at night to cope with the aftermath of his rash act. This showed his lack of remorse. It would appear that the Accused did not extend any apologies or offers of compensation to the Victim, thereby reinforcing my belief that he lacked remorse.

…

17 In my views [sic], this incident is akin to a “hit and run” road traffic accident. Precedent cases show that the sentences for “hit and run” offences under section 84(1) of the Road Traffic Act ranged from 2 weeks to 3 months’ imprisonment. Another consideration was that a bicycle, unlike a motor vehicle, had no registration number which would enable the police to trace the rider. I would envisage that in this case, time and efforts [sic] were expended to trace and locate the Accused. And, unlike motor vehicles, there is no insurance where a person injured by a cyclist could seek to recover damages. It is extremely unlikely that the Victim in this case would be compensated at all. 18 The sentencing norm for “rash acts” under section 336(a) of the Penal Code ranged from 6 weeks to 10 weeks’ imprisonment. “Killer litter” cases are where the offenders threw items from their high rise flats to the ground and they were punished under section 336(a) of the Penal Code (Cap 224). … I felt that the Accused who intentionally broke road traffic rules by cycling on and through the pavement to the bus stop, in an unsafe manner and injuring the elderly victim, cannot be treated more leniently. 19 In the ultimate [sic], I decided that there was a need for general and specific deterrence for offences committed in similar environment and situation. I felt that it should be a custodial term that would deter the Accused and cyclists from cycling on pavements and pedestrians’ pathways in such manner as to endanger the safety of other persons on the pavements. As stated in preceding paragraphs, the chances of a cyclist ‘escaping’ apprehension is much higher than a driver of a motor vehicle while the chances of an injured getting compensation from a cyclist is negligible. Cyclists know the risks against them are very low. It can be said that generally they suffer no consequences when they cycle on pavements in unsafe manner. Hence, I felt that the punishment ought to be more severe to deter cyclists from such irresponsible conduct, especially when they had injured innocent rightful users of the pavement or pathway. Prosecution’s submissions on appeal

The Prosecution submitted that the eight weeks’ imprisonment, which was about one-third of the maximum sentence for an offence under s 336(a) of the Penal Code, was manifestly excessive given the respondent’s culpability and the fact that he pleaded guilty to the reduced charge at the first reasonable opportunity. The Prosecution submitted that the respondent’s sentence should be “reduced to a term of between [two] to [four]...