Public Prosecutor v Agustinus Hadi

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Kow Keng Siong
• Judgment Date: 21 March 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] SGDC 50
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Arrest Case No 901579 of 2021, Magistrate’s Appeal No. 9065 of 2023-01
• Hearing Date: 21 March 2023
• Citation: [2023] SGDC 50
• Year: 2023
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ms Shen Wanqin (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Paul (Cross Street Chambers) & Rakesh Vasu (Gomez & Vasu LLC)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Section 64(2C)(a) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed),Dangerous or reckless driving,Sentencing approach,Section 64 amended in 2019 to provide for more severe punishment if personal injury is caused by dangerous or reckless driving,Whether dangerous or reckless driving which causes personal injury is punishable under s 64(2C)(a),Whether sentencing norms for first-time offenders convicted under s 64 before the 2019 amendment are still applicable to the sentencing of offenders under s 64(2C)(a),Road rage cases,Whether parity principle applicable to sentencing
• Published date: 08 April 2023

District Judge Kow Keng Siong: Introduction

This is a road rage case where a driver had used his vehicle as an instrument of intimidation and destruction.

The driver in question is Mr Agustinus Hadi (“the Accused”). He had pleaded guilty before me to the following dangerous driving charge under s 64 of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) (“RTA”):

You […] are charged that you, on 14 August 2020, from about 2.15pm to about 2.23pm, in Singapore, did drive a motor car bearing registration number SKC 994K (“your car”) in a manner which was dangerous to the public, to wit, by: · accelerating forward while the red ‘Kia Optima 2.0(A)’ car bearing registration number SKU 4399H (“the red car”) was filtering from the left lane to the right lane of Bartley Road East, · immediately cutting to the right lane from the left, stopping your car suddenly, reversing your car and ramming the rear of your car into the front left portion of the red car along Bartley Road East, · ramming the right side of your car into the left side of the red car along Bartley Road East, · accelerating towards the red car and hitting the rear of the car once along Tampines Avenue 1, and · ramming the front portion of your car into the rear of the red car thrice at a slip road along Tampines Avenue 1,

having regard to all circumstances of the case, including the nature, condition and use of the roads, and the amount of traffic which is actually at the time on the roads, and you have thereby committed an offence under s 64(1) and punishable under s 64(2C)(a) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed).

[emphasis added]

Facts

The circumstances of the Accused’s offence are as follows. On 14 August 2020 sometime in the afternoon, Yap Soon Leong (“Yap”) and the Accused were driving along Bartley Road East at the right lane (“lane 1”). Yap’s car (a Kia Optima 2.0(A)) was travelling behind the Accused’s car (an Audi A7) at the material time. At about 2.15pm, Yap filtered to the left lane (“lane 2”) and accelerated to overtake the Accused’s car. Yap then switched on his right signal, changed from lane 2 to lane 1 abruptly, and encroached into the path of the Accused’s car. Instead of letting Yap’s car enter lane 1 safely, the Accused accelerated forward while Yap was changing lane. This resulted in a side swipe between the left portion of the Accused’s car and the right mirror on Yap’s car, thus causing the mirror to be folded inwards. Yap eventually filtered back to lane 1 and travelled behind the Accused’s car. At about 2.16pm, Yap sounded his horn twice before filtering to lane 2. He then accelerated to about 75km/h, turned on his right signal, overtook the Accused’s car, and abruptly changed from lane 2 to lane 1. After overtaking the Accused’s car, Yap stepped on his brakes and reduced his speed to about 70km/h. The Accused swerved left to avoid a collision. Yap then immediately reduced his speed further to 56km/h. After this, Yap travelled in front of the Accused’s car on lane 1. The Accused later filtered to lane 2, immediately cut to lane 1 without overtaking Yap’s car, and stopped his car suddenly, thereby encroaching into the path of Yap’s car. This caused the rear right side of his car to collide into the left front portion of Yap’s car. After the collision, at about 2.17pm, the Accused drove forward for a short distance and stopped again. He then quickly reversed his car and rammed the rear of his car into the front left portion of Yap’s car before accelerating forward into lane 2. Yap waited for the Accused’s car to leave before driving forward. While travelling on lane 1, Yap saw the Accused’s car on lane 3. At about 2.18pm, the Accused (who was then travelling on lane 2) accelerated to Yap’s car (which was on lane 1) and rammed the right side of his car into the left side of Yap’s car. This caused Yap’s car to veer right and to hit the raised centre divider. Thereafter, the Accused cut in front of Yap’s car on lane 1 before returning to lane 2, while Yap continued to drive on lane 1. At about 2.19pm, the Accused slowed down along Tampines Avenue 10 and filtered from lane 2 to lane 1 to follow Yap’s car. Yap eventually stopped at the T-junction of Tampines Avenue 10 and Tampines Avenue 1. At about 2.20pm, the Accused filtered from lane 2 to lane 1 and stopped next to (but slightly ahead of) Yap’s car. The Accused wound down his window and took a photograph of the front of Yap’s car. When the traffic light turned green, Yap turned right and drove along Tampines Avenue 1. The Accused followed suit. At about 2.21pm, while Yap’s car was travelling on lane 2 along Tampines Avenue 1, the Accused filtered right to drive behind Yap’s car. He then accelerated towards Yap’s car and hit its rear once. Thereafter, the Accused continued driving behind Yap’s car. At about 2.23pm, Yap filtered to the left lane, entered a slip road that led into Tampines Avenue 5, and stopped his car as there was another vehicle in front. At this juncture, the Accused rammed the front portion of his car into the rear of Yap’s car thrice. Yap eventually entered Tampines Avenue 5 and turned into the car park of Blocks 902 to 946 Tampines Avenue 5, with the Accused’s car following closely behind. Yap stopped his car at a shelter, let his daughter alight, and then drove out of the carpark. Yap managed to escape the Accused as the latter’s car was stuck at the car park barrier. Yap subsequently lodged a police report regarding the incident. Recordings from his in-car camera which showed the Accused’s dangerous driving were handed over to the Police. At all material times, the traffic flow was moderate, the visibility was fair, and the road was wet as there was a heavy drizzle.

Miraculously, no one was injured during the incident.

The two cars were later found to have sustained the following damage: Yap’s car. The front left and rear portions of the car were dented, and the right rear and front right tyre fender were scratched. The cost to repair the damage was S$13,296.88. Yap had recovered the cost from his car insurer. Accused’s car. The front, sides and rear right portions of the car were damaged. The cost of repair is unknown. The car was scrapped. The Prosecution is unable to produce any photo of the damage to the two cars.

To complete the narrative, Yap was convicted in 2021 of an offence dangerous driving under s 64(1) and punishable under s 64(2C)(a) of the RTA for his conduct described at [3(b)] and [3(d)] above. He was fined $4,000 and disqualified from holding all classes of driving licences for 20 months.

Sentencing submissions

The Prosecution submitted that the Accused ought to be sentenced to 3.5 months’ imprisonment and be disqualified from holding all classes of driving licences for four years.¹ The bases for the Prosecution’s submission were as follows. First, the Accused had displayed a high level of culpability as he (a) had driven in an “aggressive manner” to retaliate against Yap’s irresponsible driving, and (b) had displayed a blatant disregard for the safety of other road users.² Second, the Accused’s driving had posed “significant” harm given (a) the circumstances of the road condition at the material time, and (b) that extensive damage was caused to Yap’s and the Accused’s cars.³ Third, the mitigating effect of the Accused’s guilty plea ought to be balanced against the fact that (a) he had compounded offences for speeding in 2007, 2014 and 2019, and (b) the Prosecution would have no difficulty in proving the charge against him given that there was a recording of his dangerous driving.⁴ Finally, the proposed sentence of 3.5 months’ imprisonment was in line with Public Prosecutor v Aw Tai Hock [2017] 5 SLR 1141 (“Aw Tai Hock”), another road rage case, where five months’ imprisonment was imposed. The only material difference between the two cases was that the victim in Aw Tai Hock had suffered musculoskeletal injuries whereas Yap did not suffer any injury.⁵

The Defence urged me to consider the following in sentencing. First, the Accused was under “extreme stress” at the time of the offence due to a confluence of financial and business issues brought on by the COVID pandemic.⁶ Second, Yap was the “aggressor” on the day in question and had triggered a chain of events which initially caused the Accused to be “shocked and stunned”, and eventually caused him to “[lose] control of his emotions” and to “[succumb] to road rage”. The Defence adduced a psychiatric report which stated that the Accused (a) had been labouring from adjustment disorder (with mixed anxiety and depressed mood) at the material time, (b) had acted out of character during the incident, and (c) had the general capacity for self-restraint. Finally, the Defence urged me to consider the fact that Yap had been sentenced to a fine when calibrating the Accused’s sentence.⁷

My Decision

Having considered the matter, I imposed the following sentence: Seven months’ imprisonment, and Disqualification from holding all classes of driving license for three years.

In imposing the sentence, I have taken the following views: The seriousness of an offence of dangerous or reckless driving is principally influenced by two factors. First, the level of the offender’s culpability for the offence. Second, the extent of harm caused by the driving. With regards to harm, Parliament had provided that different punishment regimes are to apply based on whether the dangerous or reckless driving has caused death, grievous hurt, or hurt (“personal injury”). Section 64(2C)(a) – the punishment provision in the present case – applies only where the dangerous or reckless driving does not cause personal injury (“non-personal injury cases of dangerous or reckless driving”). Parliament had provided that egregious cases of such driving can be punished up to a maximum of 12 months’ imprisonment. The...