Public Prosecutor v Ching Ling Ka @ Lincoln Cheng
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Shawn Ho |
Judgment Date | 06 December 2017 |
Neutral Citation | [2017] SGDC 326 |
Court | District Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | DAC 908124-5 of 2017, MA 9354/2017/01 |
Year | 2017 |
Published date | 25 April 2018 |
Hearing Date | 31 October 2017 |
Plaintiff Counsel | DPP Gabriel Choong (31 Oct 2017) and DPP Grace Chua (22 Nov 2017) |
Defendant Counsel | Mr Kesavan Nair (Genesis Law Corporation) |
Citation | [2017] SGDC 326 |
Drink driving is irresponsible. A motorcar in the hands of a drunk driver is a potentially devastating weapon writ large – and needlessly so.1 Selfish disregard for the lives and safety of pedestrians and other law-abiding road users deserves disapprobation.2
Whilst the law can do its best to deter and compensate, it cannot bring back a life lost nor can it salvage irreparable wounds.3
Drink driving is entirely preventable. Bringing this to sharper focus is the availability of taxis, valets, and other chauffeur-driven private hire cars.4
When personal injury is visited upon a victim or damage wrought as a result of the offender’s drink driving under s 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act (“RTA”),5 save in an exceptional category of cases,6 the starting point for sentencing such a person is a custodial sentence. In other words, the
In the present case, the Accused’s car beat the red lights of
Repairs to the victim’s taxi – damaged both at its front and rear left – cost about $20,992.81.11 After the collision, the victim experienced pain in his left leg; he did not seek medical attention.12 The incident was captured by the in-vehicle camera of the Accused’s car.13 The Accused’s driving record is not unblemished.
The Accused pleaded guilty to one charge of drink driving under s 67(1)(b) of the RTA. Failing his handheld breathalyser test, he was arrested and escorted to the Traffic Police Department for a Breath Evidential Analyser test, which revealed that he had 43 µg of alcohol in every 100 ml of breath.14 He consented to another charge of dangerous driving being taken into consideration for sentencing purposes.15
All things considered, including his mitigation plea, there were no cogent reasons to depart from the starting point of a custodial sentence. In the final analysis, I sentenced the Accused to one week’s imprisonment and three years’ driving disqualification for all vehicle classes.16
The Defence has appealed against the custodial sentence.17 The Accused is currently on bail pending the hearing of the appeal; his imprisonment sentence and driving disqualification order have been stayed.
I now set out my reasons.
The analytical framework of (i) harm,18 (ii) culpability,19 (iii) aggravating factors and (iv) mitigating factors is helpful for the sentencing of drink driving cases (“the
The eclectic ensemble of cases adopting the Analytical Framework is testament to this framework’s versatility:
This is unsurprising as the two principal parameters which a sentencing court would generally have regard to in evaluating the seriousness of a crime are: (a) the harm caused by the offence, and (b) the offender’s culpability.26
In
The contours of the Analytical Framework were explored in
In
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
The High Court in
| | | ||
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| |
As regards whether there is dangerous driving behaviour, the factors that affect culpability would generally include:32
In
Reading them together –
It would also be helpful to refer to
Aggravating factors include an offender’s bad driving record, as well as his lack of remorse.43 Belligerent and violent conduct upon apprehension is yet another type of aggravating factor that may justify an increase in the sentence.44
Mitigating FactorsMitigating factors include the offender’s remorse and a clean driving record.45 Restitution is another mitigating factor.46
There was moderate property damage. Repairs to the taxi – damaged on both its front and rear left – cost about $20,992.81.47 The metal pole supporting the sheltered walkway was scratched.48
Curiously, the Defence argued that “it appears from the photographs of the damaged taxi that the collision with the metal pole resulted in greater damage than that caused by the collision with our client’s motor car”.49
With respect, insofar as this attempted to downplay the harm wrought by the Accused’s drink driving, it was misconceived. Simply put, it was the Accused’s drink driving that set in train the events leading to the collision. He flouted the red lights at two traffic junctions, causing his car to collide into the victim’s taxi. The impact of this collision made the victim’s taxi veer off course and mount the left side road kerb along Eu Tong Seng Street before hitting into the metal pole supporting the sheltered walkway.50
After the collision, the victim experienced pain in his left leg; he did not seek medical attention.51 There was slight harm.52 It was purely fortuitous that serious injuries were not visited upon pedestrians or other road users at both junctions.
CulpabilityThere was medium culpability.53...
To continue reading
Request your trial