Public Prosecutor v Lim Yee Hua and another appeal

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chan Seng Onn J
• Judgment Date: 01 December 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] SGHC 308
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mohamed Faizal and Dora Tay (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Docket Number: Magistrate’s Appeals Nos 9019 of 2017/01 and 9019 of 2017/02
• Date: 01 December 2017
• Hearing Date: 07 July 2017
• Subject Matter: Offences,Hurt,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Road rage,Sentencing,Criminal Law,Principles
• Year: 2017
• Defendant Counsel: Chentil Kumar Kumarasingam (Oon & Bazul LLP)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Citation: [2017] SGHC 308
• Published date: 06 December 2017

Chan Seng Onn J: Introduction

The resort by road users to violence in a foolhardy bid to settle any differences that arise in the course of the shared use of our roads is an event that has always been greeted with the sternest of rebukes from our courts. Where the perpetrator of such brutish conduct on the roads causes injury to the victim, he would generally be charged under s 323 or s 325 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the Penal Code”) for voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt, depending on the severity of the injuries caused. Before the courts, he could then be branded a “road bully” and the incident would be cast as an episode of “road rage” violence. The courts, in turn, would express their disapproval by invariably imposing upon the perpetrator a suitably deterrent sentence.

This approach towards sentencing offences involving road rage violence was first given lucid expression more than two decades ago by Yong Pung How CJ, when deciding two separate Magistrate’s Appeals while sitting in the High Court. Yong CJ’s authoritative pronouncements in the cases of Ong Hwee Leong v Public Prosecutor [1992] 1 SLR(R) 458 (“Ong Hwee Leong”) (at [6]–[7]) and Public Prosecutor v Lee Seck Hing [1992] 2 SLR(R) 374 (“Lee Seck Hing”) (at [11]–[12]), which I will subsequently refer to in greater detail (at [22]–[23] below), made it abundantly clear that the primary sentencing consideration for offences involving road rage violence was both general and specific deterrence, and that this was predicated upon the desire to protect road users from violence stemming from traffic-related skirmishes.

Today, the fundamental sentencing consideration of deterrence continues to undergird the sentencing for offences involving road rage violence. Having said that, there are two corollary questions that appear to have been the subject of inconsistent treatment by the courts: first, whether all instances of violence that arise on the roads should be shoehorned into the Procrustean bed of road rage offences; and second, whether the overriding policy imperative of deterrence should necessarily lead to a custodial sentence for road rage offences. These questions call for a re-examination of the attendant principles that should inform the sentencing of offences involving road rage violence. The present pair of cross-appeals that I heard on 7 July 2017 provides me with the opportunity to address these issues.

Background

In the current proceedings, Mr Lim Yee Hua (“Lim”), a 37-year-old male Singapore citizen, faced two charges under s 323 of the Penal Code for voluntarily causing hurt to the victim, Mr Basil Ho Ping Yong (“Basil”), who is a 50-year-old male Singapore citizen. While one charge was brought against Lim for punching Basil on the right side of his face, causing his spectacles to be knocked off and thereby resulting in an abrasion to his left eyebrow (“the first charge”), a second was brought against Lim for punching Basil on the back of his neck (“the second charge”). Both incidents occurred on the same day at about the same time but at different locations. Lim claimed trial to both charges. Following the trial below, the District Judge convicted Lim on both charges and imposed a fine of S$4,000 (in default four weeks’ imprisonment) for the first charge and a fine of S$5,000 (in default five weeks’ imprisonment) for the second charge: see Public Prosecutor v Lim Yee Hua [2017] SGMC 6 (“the GD”) at [8]–[9].

Both Lim and the Prosecution filed appeals against the District Judge’s decision. Magistrate’s Appeal No 9019 of 2017/01 is the Prosecution’s appeal against sentence on the grounds that the sentences imposed were wrong in principle and manifestly inadequate.¹ As for Magistrate’s Appeal No 9019 of 2017/02, although Lim initially appealed against both conviction and sentence,² his appeal was subsequently limited to an appeal against only his conviction for the first charge.³ Counsel for Lim confirmed this in his written submissions.⁴

Having heard the submissions from both parties during the hearing on 7 July 2017, I did not think that the District Judge’s decision to convict Lim on the first charge was wrong in law or had been reached against the weight of the evidence before him. Specifically, I saw no reason to disturb the District Judge’s findings of fact that Basil was a credible witness and that Lim lacked credibility. I thus dismissed Lim’s appeal against conviction.⁵

As for the Prosecution’s appeal against sentence, I took the view that the authorities cited by the parties did not speak with one voice on the correct approach to adopt in sentencing offences involving road rage violence. I thus reserved judgment to consider more carefully the questions posed earlier (at [3] above) and their implications on the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Lim. I should note that after the hearing, counsel for Lim brought further arguments regarding the second charge to my attention through a letter sent to the registry on 10 July 2017.⁶ The Prosecution responded with a letter of their own the next day.⁷ I took in all the arguments made, but did not think it necessary to seek any further submissions. I now give my judgment on the Prosecution’s appeal against sentence, commencing with a brief overview of the relevant facts.

The relevant facts

On 11 July 2014, at about 7.30pm, Lim was driving his car along Canberra Road towards Canberra Link.⁸ With him in the car at that time were his wife, maid and children. As Lim approached the slip road linking Canberra Road to Canberra Link, Basil, who had just crossed Canberra Road, was also just about to start crossing the zebra crossing located at that slip road by foot.⁹ When Basil was about two to three steps into the zebra crossing, Lim drove his car through the zebra crossing without stopping to give way to Basil, thus almost hitting him.¹⁰

Upset at what just happened, Basil responded by using his open palm to hit the top of Lim’s car with “light to moderate force”,¹¹ before continuing to cross the zebra crossing and make his way up a flight of stairs towards Block 503B Canberra Link. When Lim heard the loud thud on the roof of his car, he immediately pulled over at the side of the slip road, alighted from his car, and gave chase after Basil. Lim managed to catch up with Basil near a lamp post at the foot of Block 503B Canberra Link, which was about 30m away from the zebra crossing.¹² There, the parties got involved in a heated verbal exchange. During the confrontation, Lim shouted and hurled vulgarities at Basil, demanding to know why he had hit his car.¹³ Lim then grabbed Basil’s shirt and pushed Basil, causing him to lose his balance. At this time, a male elderly passer-by intervened and attempted to defuse the situation by advising both parties to calm down. However, his efforts were to no avail.¹⁴ Lim then swung his left fist at Basil’s face, grazing the right side of his face. The blow knocked off Basil’s spectacles, causing an abrasion to Basil’s left eye brow. Basil’s spectacles, which flew off to his left, became badly bent out of shape (“the first incident”).¹⁵ The same elderly passer-by helped to retrieve Basil’s spectacles and pass it back to him.¹⁶

In response to being hit by Lim, Basil informed him that he would be making a police report, took out a writing pad, and walked back towards the zebra crossing where Lim had stopped his car. Lim followed Basil back to his car. Basil then took down Lim’s car plate number. As Basil was attempting to leave the scene, Lim stood between him and the flight of stairs leading back to Block 503B Canberra Link, blocking his way and continuing to shout and hurl expletives at Basil. Lim then lunged towards Basil, reaching out to grab a chain that he wore around his neck. As a result, Basil’s chain broke and fell to the ground, scratching his neck at the same time. As Basil was bending down to look for his chain, Lim then punched Basil on the back of his neck (“the second incident”). Basil felt sore as a result of the punch. Immediately after, Basil ignored Lim and continued to look for his chain, while Lim returned to his car and drove off.¹⁷ The second incident was witnessed by one Mr Mark Chen Qunjing, a passer-by who happened to be in the vicinity of the zebra crossing.¹⁸

The decision below

As I have already dismissed Lim’s appeal against conviction, I set out the District Judge’s reasons only for the sentence imposed on Lim in respect of both charges. During the trial below, the Prosecution submitted for a short custodial sentence without specifying the length of the sentence sought, while counsel for Lim submitted for the imposition of an aggregate fine of S$5,000: the GD at [115]–[116]. The District Judge disagreed with both parties’ submissions, and instead imposed a global fine of S$9,000 (in default nine weeks’ imprisonment): the GD at [121].

In arriving at his decision, the District Judge first agreed with the Prosecution that Lim’s actions were disproportionate to any possible provocation that Basil might have made: the GD at [126]. However, the District Judge recognised that the evidence showed that Lim’s actions appeared impulsive rather than calculated, and that while his actions were deliberate, they were certainly not premeditated, planned nor prolonged in any way: the GD at [124]–[125].

Second, the District Judge gave weight to the fact that the injuries suffered by Basil as a result of the two incidents were minor ones for which no medication was required, and rejected the Prosecution’s submission that the injuries could have been severe because the attacks were carried out against vulnerable parts of Basil’s body. In the District Judge’s view, the law should always look at the actual outcome of an offender’s actions and not merely at the manner in which the offender acted. In any event, the District Judge found it speculative to suggest that Basil may...