Public Prosecutor v Chen Baole Emanuel

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Salina Ishak
• Judgment Date: 30 January 2024
• Neutral Citation: [2024] SGDC 18
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Traffic Notice No 229022100711, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9007-2024-01
• Hearing Date: 03 January 2024
• Citation: [2024] SGDC 18
• Year: 2024
• Plaintiff Counsel: Jimmy Yap Poh Huat (Criminal Investigation Department)
• Defendant Counsel: The accused acting in person.
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Statutory Offences,Road Traffic Act,Dangerous driving where hurt caused
• Published date: 09 February 2024

District Judge Salina Ishak: Background

The accused, Mr Chen Baole Emanuel, a 24 year-old male Singapore citizen had pleaded guilty on 3 January 2024 to a charge of dangerous driving where hurt was caused and punishable under s 64(2B)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (“RTA”) as set out below:

Charge

are charged that on the 18th October 2022, at or about 7.40 pm, along signalized junction of Upper Serangoon Road and Bidadari Park Drive, Singapore, did ride a motorcycle FBJ8174C in a manner which is dangerous to the public having regard to all 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, to wit, by failing to conform to traffic red traffic light signal by riding straight across the junction and resulting front portion of your motorcycle to collide with the front portion of motorcycle FBG5041M who was turning right at the said junction from your opposite direction with green traffic light signal, and hurt was caused to one Oh Chew Cheong, male / 59 years old, you have thereby committed an offence under Section 64(1) punishable under Section 64(2B)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1961.

The accused admitted to the Statement of Facts (PS1) without any qualification. After carefully considering the Prosecution’s submissions on sentence and the accused’s plea in mitigation, I imposed a fine of $4,000 in default 10 days’ imprisonment and disqualified him from holding or obtaining all classes of driving licences for a period of 15 months with effect from his date of conviction on 3 January 2024.

The accused being dissatisfied with my decision had filed his Notice of Appeal against my sentence on 16 January 2024. He has paid the fine in full.

Having set out the background for the present case, I now provide the reasons for my decision.

Salient Facts

The accused was the rider of motorcycle FBJ8174C at the time of accident. The victim is Oh Chew Cheong, male, 59 years old. He was the rider of motorcycle FBG5041M at the time of accident. The witness is Yong Lup Whye, male, 55 years old. He was the independent eyewitness at the time of accident.

Facts of Case

On 18th October 2022 at or about 7.40pm, along signalised cross-junction of Upper Serangoon Road and Bidadari Park Drive, Singapore, the accused rode his motorcycle FBJ8174C in a manner which was dangerous to the public having regarding to all circumstances of the case, including the nature, condition and use of the road and the amount of traffic which was actually at the time or which might reasonably be expected to be on the road, to wit by failing to conform to traffic red traffic light signal by riding straight across the junction and resulting front portion of the accused’s motorcycle to collide with the front portion of the victim’s motorcycle FBG5041M who was turning right at the said junction from the accused’s opposite direction with the green traffic light signal and hurt was caused to the victim.

Independent witness

The witness who was traveling in the same direction as the victim, saw victim was turning right when traffic light signal was green. At the same time, the accused was approaching from the oncoming traffic, at high speed and he failed to conform to the traffic red light signal. This resulted in the collision at the middle of the junction involving both motorcycles.

Investigations revealed that the accused admitted that he did not notice the traffic light signal at the material of time, prior to the collision. At the time of accident, the weather was good, road surface was dry and traffic flow was light.

Personal Injuries

As a result of the accident, the victim suffered abrasions on both his arms and legs. He sought medical treatment at Singapore General Hospital, Emergency Department on the same day and was given 7 days of outpatient sick leave from 18th October 2022 until 24th October 2022. On 24th October 2022, the victim was given additional 11 days of hospitalisation leave from 24th October until 3rd November 2022.

Property damage

The front portion of the victim’s motorcycle was damaged. The right side of the accused’s motorcycle was also damaged.

By virtue of the foregoing, the accused had committed the offence of dangerous driving causing hurt under s 64(1) and punishable under s 64(2B)(a) of the RTA.

Sentencing Prescribed Penalty

The prescribed penalty for an offence of dangerous driving causing hurt under s 64(1) punishable under s 64(2B)(a) of the RTA is a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both. Although there is no prescribed disqualification period under s 64(2D) of the RTA for the present offence, as the offence is in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle, the court has the discretion pursuant to s 42(1) of the RTA to make an order disqualifying the offender from holding or obtaining a driving licence for life or for such period as the court thinks fit.

Antecedents

The accused was a first offender.

Prosecution’s Submissions on Sentence Culpability

It was the Prosecution’s position that the accused’s culpability fell between the low to moderate category as he failed to see the traffic light signal while approaching the junction which enhanced his culpability. It was submitted that the witness had noticed that the accused was travelling at high speed.

Harm

It was further submitted that the level of harm was low as the victim suffered minor injuries.

As the accused’s culpability was at the higher end of low and the level of harm was low, the Prosecution had sought for fine of between $4,000 to $5,000 and 12 to 18 months disqualification.

Mitigation

In his oral mitigation, the accused apologised for his mistake. He hoped for some leniency as his record was clean. He had learnt his lesson and also regretted his actions.

Decision on sentence Sentencing approach

S 64(1) of the RTA encapsulates the primary offence of reckless or dangerous driving on a road. The subsequent subsections from ss 64(2), 64(2A) and 64(2B) are the penalty prescribing provisions, each tiered according to the degree of hurt caused and for s 64(2C), for any other case of non-personal injury or potential harm.

The 1 November 2019 amendments to the RTA resulted in a tiered approach in the prescribed penalties where a first offender under s 64(1), who fell at the lowest end of the spectrum of no personal injury or potential harm is occasioned, is liable to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment not exceeding 12 months or to both. At the highest end of the spectrum where death is caused, the first offender is liable to imprisonment of not less than two years and not more than eight years’ imprisonment. In addition, enhanced penalties as well as minimum disqualification periods were introduced for offences where death or grievous hurt is caused as well as for a repeat offender, a serious offender as well as a serious repeat offender.

As at the date of my decision, there is no existing sentencing framework enunciated by the High Court for offences under s 64(1), particularly for an offence punishable under s 64(2B)(a) of the RTA.

Available sentencing frameworks for irresponsible driving

In Wu Zhi Yong v PP [2022] 4 SLR 587 (“Wu Zhi Yong”), Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon had prescribed a sentencing framework for an offence of reckless driving by a serious offender under s 64(1) punishable under s 64(2C)(a) read with s 64(2C)(c) of the RTA. The prescribed penalty for an offence of reckless or dangerous driving punishable under section 64(2C)(a) of the RTA is fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both. Where the offence involves a serious offender, he is liable to a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both, in addition to the punishment under s 64(2C)(a) of the RTA. At [30] and [48] of his judgment, Menon CJ had set out the following sentencing approach:

The sentencing approach

30 At the first step, as set out in Terence Ng at [39], the court should identify the band applicable to the offence and the indicative starting point with reference to that band, having regard to the offence-specific factors present. These would encompass factors relating to the manner and mode by which the offence was committed, as well as the harm caused by the offender. At the second step, the court would have regard to the offender-specific factors, being the aggravating and mitigating factors that are personal to the offender...

48 At the second step of the analysis, the court will have regard to the offender-specific factors. Examples of these factors have been set out at [62] – [71] of Terence Ng and apply equally in the present framework. Offender-specific aggravating factors include offences taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing, the presence of relevant antecedents (apart from where the offender’s antecedents have been taken into account under the “repeat offender” or “serious repeat offender” provisions), and evidence showing a lack of remorse. Offender-specific mitigating factors include evidence of genuine remorse and an offender’s youth.

The sentencing band prescribed in Wu Zhi Yong is set out below:

Band	Degree of seriousness	Sentencing range
1	Lower level of seriousness with no offence-specific aggravating factors present or where they are present only to a limited extent. The offender’s blood alcohol level is also likely to be at the lowest or second lowest bands in the framework set out in Rafael Voltaire Alzate v Public Prosecutor [2022] 3 SLR 993 (“Rafael Voltaire”).	A fine of between $2,000 and $15,000 and/or up to one month’s imprisonment and a disqualification period of two to three

...