Public Prosecutor v Lee Cheow Loong Charles

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 05 August 2008
• Date: 05 August 2008
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 257 of 2007
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Public Prosecutor

Plaintiff

and

Lee Cheow Loong Charles

Defendant

[2008] SGHC 124

Chan Sek Keong CJ

Magistrate's Appeal No 257 of 2007

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Sentencing–Principles–Accused sentenced to total of one year's imprisonment for multiple offences including killing pedestrian while driving under disqualification–Whether sentence manifestly inadequate–Application of one-transaction rule and totality principle–Road Traffic–Offences–Driving under disqualification–Rash act causing death–Failing to render assistance after accident–Whether offences committed in one transaction–Sections 43 and 84 Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed)–Section 18 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)

On 16 November 2006 at about 6.39am, the respondent was driving a car along Eu Tong Sen Street in excess of the speed limit. On approaching the signalised junction of Pearl's Hill Terrace and Eu Tong Sen Street, he failed to slow down and collided with an elderly pedestrian, Mdm Pang, who was crossing Eu Tong Sen Street at the signalised crossing. The impact threw Mdm Pang about 27m ahead and dislodged the front registration plate of the car. After the collision, the respondent stopped the car some distance away from the scene and, seeing Mdm Pang lying motionless on the road, drove off without rendering any assistance to her. He then drove to Balestier Road and parked the car in the basement car park of Balestier Towers. Staff Seargeant (“SSgt”) Tan, the police officer who was dispatched to the scene, found Mdm Pang lying unconscious on Eu Tong Sen Street, bleeding on the forehead and at the mouth. The front registration plate of the car was also found at the scene. Mdm Pang was later taken to Singapore General Hospital, where she was pronounced dead at 7.17am.

The car was registered to one Kelris Lim, who managed a pub with the respondent. Lim revealed that the respondent was the driver of the car; as the respondent was not in when SSgt Tan visited his home that day, SSgt Tan advised his parents to persuade him to surrender to the traffic police. On 17 November 2006 at about 10.30am the respondent surrendered himself to the traffic police and was placed under arrest. He informed SSgt Tan of the car's location and the car was retrieved by the police. It transpired that the respondent was the beneficial owner of the car, having paid $20,000 to purchase it. The car was registered in Lim's name because the respondent was and remains an undischarged bankrupt.

Investigations also revealed that on 27 September 2006, approximately two months after the respondent had purchased the car, the respondent had been sentenced in the Subordinate Courts to, inter alia, disqualification from possessing a driving licence for 18 months until 26 March 2008 as a result of having committed the offence of driving while intoxicated under s 67 (1) (b) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed). The respondent also admitted to driving on two other occasions in the earlier hours of 16 November 2006, before the accident occurred.

The respondent pleaded guilty on the first day of trial to,inter alia, the offences of causing death by a rash act under s 304A of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed), driving while disqualified under s 43 (4) of the Road Traffic Act, and failing to render assistance after a fatal accident under s 84 of the Road Traffic Act. The District Judge sentenced the respondent to a total of one year's imprisonment and the Prosecution appealed.

Held, allowing the appeal:

(1) The respondent committed three factually and conceptually distinct and separate groups of offences: driving whilst under disqualification, causing death by rash driving and failing to render assistance after an accident. Each group of offences was in itself serious and did not necessarily or inevitably flow from the others, thus the one-transaction rule did not apply. The mere fact that the respondent committed several distinct offences in a short span of time certainly should not result in a more lenient sentence being imposed on him. However, the Prosecution's argument that an element of “denunciation” should be factored in to reflect society's revulsion of the respondent's serious offences, was incorrect. While some crimes would certainly prompt greater public outrage than others, as a sentencing consideration, denunciation added nothing to the court's decision, which must be based on the law, the factual circumstances, including, the accused person's moral culpability, and the public interest: at [18], [23] to [25].

(2) In relation to the offence of driving whilst under disqualification, the respondent had admittedly driven on at least three occasions in the few hours preceding the accident, and probably on many other occasions during the period of disqualification. The respondent's audacious and unmeritorious excuse that he had been driving at the time of the accident because he needed to go home and take his mother to hospital only demonstrated a complete lack of remorse. General and especially specific deterrence were important considerations in offences such as the present one, which were very difficult to detect. Given that the respondent had been speeding while driving under disqualification, and even caused a fatal accident, a substantial custodial sentence was warranted for punishment and public protection. In the circumstances, the present case fell close to, but was not, the very worst case deserving the maximum sentence, and 24 months' imprisonment was appropriate: at [31] to [33].

(3) With respect to the offence of causing death by rash driving, the degree of rashness involved in the respondent's driving was high. He was speeding despite having recently been disqualified and declared by the court as being unfit to drive; he also did not slow down when approaching the signalised crossing and failed to notice Mdm Pang crossing the road. He only reacted when his car was barely two metres away from Mdm Pang, by which point it was impossible for him to slow down enough to prevent a fatal collision. Given the circumstances, including the respondent's complete lack of remorse, a sentence of 15 months' imprisonment was appropriate: at [38] and [39].

(4) In fleeing the scene after the accident, the respondent committed up to four distinct offences under s 84 of the Road Traffic Act, namely: (a) failing to render assistance contrary to s 84 (3); (b) moving the car without police authority contrary to s 84 (4); (c) failing to stop after the accident contrary to s 84 (1); and failing to make a police report within 24 hours of the accident contrary to s 84 (2). Pursuant to the one-transaction rule, the offences in (a) and (b) (which the respondent pleaded guilty to, while those in (c) and (d) were taken into consideration for sentencing purposes) could not be punished cumulatively since they were committed in the same transaction. However, the specificity with which each of the four offences was defined in the legislative scheme of s 84 of the Road Traffic Act demonstrated the seriousness of hit-and-run accidents, especially in light of the provision in s 18 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) that an accused person who was convicted of at least three distinct offences had to serve the sentences for at least two of the offences consecutively: at [42].

(5) The respondent's assertion that he fled the scene after stopping some distance from the point of collision because he saw passers-by running over with raised arms and feared that he would be harassed or assaulted, was pure invention and fantasy. It was also not an excuse that Mdm Pang might have been attended to by other people because the respondent was specifically required to render assistance under s 84 (3) of the Road Traffic Act. Even if Mdm Pang had received immediate assistance from passers-by, this would still not have excused the respondent's failure to render assistance to her as he had fled to avoid detection. Thus a sentence of nine months' imprisonment was appropriate: at [43] and [44].

Bhalchandra Waman Pathe v The State of Maharashtra (1967) 71 Bom LR 634 (refd)

Chng Wei Meng v PP [2002] 2 SLR (R) 566; [2002] 4 SLR 595 (refd)

Mohamad Iskandar bin Basri v PP [2006] 4 SLR (R) 440; [2006] 4 SLR 440 (refd)

PP v Fernandez Joseph Ferdinent [2007] 4 SLR (R) 1; [2007] 4 SLR 1 (folld)

PP v Gan Lim Soon [1993] 2 SLR (R) 67; [1993] 3 SLR 261 (refd)

PP v Kwong Kok Hing [2008] 2 SLR (R) 684; [2008] 2 SLR 684 (refd)

PP v Law Aik Meng [2007] 2 SLR (R) 814; [2007] 2 SLR 814 (refd)

PP v Lee Meng Soon [2007] 4 SLR (R) 240; [2007] 4 SLR 240 (refd)

PP v Poh Teck Huat [2003] 2 SLR (R) 299; [2003] 2 SLR 299 (refd)

PP v Teo Poh Leng [1991] 2 SLR (R) 541; [1992] 1 SLR 15 (refd)

Wong Shyh Shian v PP [2002] SGDC 45 (refd)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)s 18

Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Rev Ed)ss 3 (1),3 (2)

Penal Code (Cap 224,1985Rev Ed)s 304A

Penal Code (Amendment) Act2007 (Act 51 of2007)

Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 1997 Rev Ed)s 64 (1)

Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004Rev Ed)ss 43 (4),67 (1) (b), 84 (1),84 (2),84 (3),84 (4),84 (7),84 (8),131 (2)

Solicitor-General Walter Woon and Christopher Ong (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the appellant

Alan Moh and Gill Zaminder (Alan Moh & Co) for the respondent.

Chan Sek Keong CJ

Introduction

1 This was an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the sentences imposed on the respondent for offences relating to a road traffic accident which took place in the early hours of 16 November 2006 (“the Accident”). Arising from his involvement in the Accident, the respondent was charged with the following:

(a) causing the death of a person by doing a rash act not amounting to culpable homicide (referred to in the specific factual context of these grounds of decision as “causing death by rash...