Public Prosecutor v Wang Jianliang

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Christopher Tan Pheng Wee
• Judgment Date: 13 June 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] SGMC 27
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: MAC 911027 of 2018 & Ors
• Published date: 15 June 2019
• Year: 2019
• Hearing Date: 14 May 2019,23 May 2019
• Plaintiff Counsel: Sheryl Yeo (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Defendant Counsel: Eugene Thuraisingam (Eugene Thuraisingam LLP)
• Citation: [2019] SGMC 27

District Judge Christopher Tan Pheng Wee: Introduction

The Accused is a 57-year-old male. He pleaded guilty to the two charges below and was sentenced as follows:

	Proceeded Charge	Offence	Sentence imposed
1	MAC 911027/2018 Doing an act so rashly as to endanger the personal safety of others	Section 336(a) of the Penal Code1	1 week’s imprisonment 6 months’ disqualification2 from holding / obtaining all classes of driving licences
2	MAC 911028/2018 Committing mischief	Section 427 of the Penal Code	$2,000 fine3

The Accused also consented to one other charge of using criminal force (MAC 911026/2018), under s 352 of the Penal Code, being taken into consideration (“TiC”) for the purpose of sentencing.

Facts

On 16 March 2017, at around 5.50pm, the Accused and the Complainant were driving their respective cars on a merging lane entering the Pan Island Expressway (“PIE”), in the direction of Changi Airport. At that time, traffic was slow-moving but heavy, with vehicles closely packed.

When the Accused tried to filter into the merging lane, the Complainant refused to give way. This greatly annoyed the Accused. He thus intentionally accelerated, driving on the road shoulder until he overtook the Complainant’s car. The Accused ended up directly in front of the Complainant, with both cars on the leftmost lane of the PIE (which had five lanes). The Accused then abruptly applied his brakes twice, so as to convey his displeasure about the Complainant not giving way to him earlier. On both occasions, the Complainant managed to brake in time, thereby averting a collision with the Accused. The Complainant then filtered right, to the second leftmost lane of the PIE. Immediately, the Accused followed suit and applied his brakes abruptly for the third time. On this third occasion, the Complainant was unable to brake in time, with the result that his front bumper collided into the Accused’s rear bumper. According to a quote which the Complainant subsequently obtained, the cost of repairing the damage to his front bumper and number plate was $2,162. These events which led to the collision form the subject of the charge against the Accused under s 336(a) of the Penal Code (“the rash endangerment charge”):

MAC 911027/2018

… you, on 16 March 2017, between 5.51pm to 5.52pm, along the Pan Island Expressway near Pioneer Road North, Singapore, did do an act so rashly as to endanger the personal safety of [the Complainant] and other road users, to wit, by intentionally and abruptly jamming the brakes of your car … thrice in front of [the Complainant’s] car …, when there was no reason to do so, causing the said [Complainant’s] car to collide into the rear of your car, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 336(a) of the Penal Code ….

After the collision, the Accused and the Complainant stopped their cars at the second leftmost lane of the PIE. Both men alighted and took photographs of the other party’s car. The Accused then demanded to see the Complainant’s driving licence. The latter refused, telling the Accused to check with the Land Transport Authority using the vehicle registration number that the Accused had already taken a photograph of. This enraged the Accused, who shouted at the Complainant. The Complainant, a 60-year-old male Singaporean, decided to disengage by returning to the safety of his car. However, the Accused tried to prevent the Complainant from getting in by forcefully opening the Complainant’s car door, grabbing the Complainant’s arm and pulling it. The Complainant pushed the Accused’s hand away, causing the latter to drop his mobile phone. The Accused’s act of grabbing the Complainant’s arm and pulling it forms the subject of the TiC charge, i.e. using criminal force under s 352 of the Penal Code.

The Complainant managed to get into his car, after which he locked the car doors. The Accused tried to open the Complainant’s car door and, upon realising that it was locked, hit the driver-side window of the Complainant’s car. The Complainant then attempted to drive away. In a bid to stop the Complainant from leaving, the Accused walked to the front of the Complainant’s car and forcefully hit the bonnet four times, thereby denting it. The Complainant managed to reverse his car and drive off. According to a quote which the Complainant subsequently obtained, the cost of repairing his bonnet was S$2,171. The Accused’s act of hitting the bonnet forms the subject of the charge under s 427 of the Penal Code (“the mischief charge”):

MAC 911028/2018

… you, on 16 March 2017, at about 5.54pm, in the second lane from the left along the Pan Island Expressway near Pioneer Road North, Singapore, did commit mischief, to wit, by hitting the [Complainant’s] car … on the bonnet four times forcefully ... , resulting in damages to the bonnet of the car amounting to S$2,171, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 427 of the Penal Code …

Antecedents

According to the Accused’s antecedent report (which he admitted to), he was convicted on 30 April 2007 of one charge⁴ under s 13A(1)(a) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act,⁵ for insulting behaviour. The Prosecution tendered a copy of that charge, which showed that the insulting behaviour involved the Accused spitting at someone. For that, he was fined $2,000.

The Accused has no other criminal records.

The Accused’s Mitigation Plea

In the mitigation plea, the Defence canvassed various arguments, the broad thrusts of which are laid out below: The rash endangerment charge was preferred under the limb of s 336(a) which relates to endangerment of personal safety, as opposed to endangerment of human life. Offences under the former carry lower culpability than those under the latter.⁶ For offences involving rashness, the outcome is material to the sentence.⁷ Under this principle of ‘outcome materiality’ the court can take account of the full extent of the harm arising from the offence. ⁸ In this case, as the harm was low (no injuries resulted), the Accused’s culpability is correspondingly low.⁹ The Complainant drove in an inconsiderate and aggressive fashion, despite the Accused having the right of way.¹⁰ The Accused had thus acted under provocation¹¹ and without any premeditation.¹² The Accused pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.¹³ The Accused has a long and distinguished career.¹⁴ A custodial sentence would have a catastrophic impact on him and his family.¹⁵

The Rash Endangerment Charge

The manner in which the Accused had driven gave rise to an offence under s 336(a) of the Penal Code, which reads:

Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished — (a) in the case of a rash act, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 months, or with fine which may extend to $2,500, or with both; or (b) in the case of a negligent act, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months, or with fine which may extend to $1,500, or with both.

The rash endangerment charge, having been brought under the ‘rash’ (as opposed to ‘negligent’) category under s 336, invoked the higher punishment ceiling in subsection (a).

Section 336(a) of the Penal Code and the principle of outcome materiality

For offences under s 336(a) of the Penal Code, the charge may be brought under either the endangerment of personal safety limb or the endangerment of human life limb. In PP v. Lim Choon Teck [2015] SGHC 265 (“Lim Choon Teck”), Chan Seng Onn J observed that charges under the ‘personal safety’ limb ordinarily attract a lower sentence than those under the ‘human life’ limb. In this respect, the Defence draws the court’s attention to the following observation by Chan J:¹⁶

Naturally, when an offender is charged under the Personal Safety Limb as opposed to the Endangering Life Limb, it is an indication that his rashness ... falls at the lower end of the spectrum in relation to an offence under s 336(a) of the Penal Code. Therefore, correspondingly, his sentence would in the absence of other aggravating factors likely fall at the lower end of the sentencing spectrum of s 336(a) of the Penal Code. … [emphasis added]

As a preliminary observation, the statutory provision does not rule out the custodial option for the ‘personal safety’ limb. Particularly in this case, where the category concerned is rashness and not just negligence. Furthermore, Chan J explicitly qualified in the extract of his judgment above (see emphasised text) that his observation was subject to the absence of aggravating factors. On the present facts, a key aggravating factor was that this is a case of road rage −I will touch on that later (at paragraph 28 below).

In Lim Choon Teck, Chan J set out three (non-exhaustive) factors for determining where the offender should be placed on the sentencing spectrum:¹⁷ the degree of rashness; the injury suffered by the victim; and whether the offender pleaded guilty early.

The Defence has placed significant reliance on the second factor, i.e. the absence of injuries in this case. In particular, the Defence cites the following statement from Chan J’s judgment in Lim Choon Teck:¹⁸

A fine that is close to the upper limit should generally be reserved for cases where no injuries or only relatively minor injuries are suffered by the victim and the offender pleads guilty at the first reasonable opportunity

This, argues the Defence, demonstrates the importance which Lim Choon Teck attributed to the principle of outcome materiality. If the outcome occasioned no injury, so the argument goes, the sentence must be dialled down accordingly.

In alluding to the principle of outcome materiality, the court in Lim Choon Teck had referred to PP v Hue An Li [2014] SGHC 171 (“...