Public Prosecutor v Fizul Asrul bin Efandi

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tay Yong Kwang JA
• Judgment Date: 14 May 2018
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 9003 of 2018/01
• Date: 14 May 2018

Public Prosecutor

and

Fizul Asrul bin Efandi

[2018] SGHC 119

Tay Yong Kwang JA

Magistrate's Appeal No 9003 of 2018/01

High Court

Criminal Law — Offences — Hurt — Respondent parked his car in narrow lane and blocked traffic — Victim in car behind sounded horn at respondent — Respondent punched victim twice on face — Respondent convicted for voluntarily causing hurt — Section 323 Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Principles — Disqualification orders — Respondent sentenced to 16 weeks' imprisonment — District judge refused to impose driving ban by way of disqualification order — Whether disqualification order should be imposed — Section 42(2) Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed)

Held, allowing the appeal:

(1) When considering whether an offence was one which arose from or was connected with a dispute over the use of a road or public place within the meaning of s 42(2)(c) of the RTA, it was not realistic to dissect the sequence of events into distinct parts and assign a distinct reason for each part when they all flowed continuously as part of one incident. The actions of the persons involved should be viewed as an overall assessment to see whether those actions could be said, as a matter of common-sense, to have occurred as a result of a dispute over the use of the road or public place. Actions which were far removed in time, place and context from the said dispute could, where appropriate, be considered not to have arisen from or connected with such dispute: at [12].

(2) Applying the above approach, the offence in the present case fell squarely within the wording of s 42(2)(c) of the RTA. The respondent and the victim were two drivers who got into an argument because of the respondent's indiscriminate parking which blocked off one lane of traffic without warning other drivers, thereby trapping the victim's car in that lane even if it was temporary. One action then led to a corresponding reaction but they were all linked causally and closely to the respondent's irresponsible and selfish hoarding of the road space. Accordingly, s 42(2) of the RTA was applicable: at [11].

(3) In exercising its discretion to impose a disqualification order under s 42(2)(d) of the RTA, the court should bear in mind the need for deterrence of unruly or violent behaviour, and the need to protect other road users. The imposition of a disqualification order serves both objectives. The offender would not have the opportunity to be a menace on the roads and for the duration of the disqualification order, which could conceivably be longer than any imprisonment term imposed, the offender would be reminded that he was not permitted to drive because of his bad behaviour on the roads: at [13] and [14].

(4) Where bad behaviour on the roads was repeated, it would be highly unusual for the court to decide not to order any disqualification. In appropriate cases, even first-time offenders might be disqualified from driving for a suitable period. For instance, where the behaviour of the first-time offender was outrageous and he had shown that he was a menace to other road users: at [21].

(5) Additionally, in having regard to the “circumstances under which the offence was committed” as required by s 42(2)(d) of the RTA, the court should also consider the behaviour of the victim and any other persons present before and during the commission of the offence: at [13].

(6) Applying the above approach, a disqualification order was warranted on the facts. First, as seen from the 2013 offence and the present offence, the respondent was quick to resort to violence whenever agitated. The incident could have been averted had he not been lazy to move his car another 20m or so into the carpark, or switched on the car's hazard lights, or waved to signify that he was sorry or apologised once he realised that he was blocking traffic. Instead, he chose to be rude. When the victim responded, the respondent became confrontational and behaved in a totally uncivil manner by spitting at him. While the victim did spit back, it was the respondent who delivered the first punch to a vulnerable part of the victim's body. The second punch, which was calculated to prevent the victim from calling the police, was reprehensible and an aggravating factor as the victim had already moved away and was trying to call for assistance. The respondent had to be restrained by his passenger. It was clearly in the public interest that aggressive drivers who did not control their anger and posed a danger to the safety of other road users should not be allowed to drive for an appropriate period of time. Second, specific deterrence was highly relevant in view of the respondent's prior conviction. The present offence was committed only three years after the 2013 offence. Evidently, the earlier sentence of eight weeks' imprisonment did not rehabilitate the respondent or deter similar conduct. Accordingly, a disqualification order for an appropriately long period was needed this time. Third, the respondent's conviction in 2008 for rioting with a dangerous weapon, although not an aggravating factor, confirmed that violent behaviour was not an uncharacteristic part of the respondent. Finally, none of the reasons raised by the respondent were sufficient to displace the need for disqualification: at [15] to [19].

(7) Where the duration of the disqualification order was concerned, s 42(2) of the RTA allowed disqualification for life or for such period as the court thought fit. Having regard to the respondent's uncouth, aggressive and violent behaviour and his recent conviction for the 2013 offence, a disqualification order for 12 months was appropriate. Accordingly, the respondent was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving license for all classes of vehicles for a period of 12 months: at [20] to [22].

Case(s) referred to

PP v Lim Yee Hua [2018] 3 SLR 1106 (folld)

PP v Shi Ka Yee Magistrates' Arrest Case No 906796 of 2016 (refd)

PP...