Rafael Voltaire Alzate v Public Prosecutor
Judge | Sundaresh Menon CJ |
Judgment Date | 28 September 2021 |
Neutral Citation | [2021] SGHC 224 |
Citation | [2021] SGHC 224 |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Published date | 02 October 2021 |
Docket Number | Magistrate’s Appeal No 9001 of 2021 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Luke Lee Yoon Tet (Luke Lee & Co) |
Defendant Counsel | Chong Yong and Chng Luey Chi (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Subject Matter | Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing,Benchmark Sentences,Principles |
Hearing Date | 27 July 2021 |
After a night of drinking, the appellant, Rafael Voltaire Alzate (“Alzate”), made an aborted attempt to ride his motorcycle out of a basement carpark. Alzate struggled with his motorcycle as he attempted, unsuccessfully, to exit the carpark where he had left his motorcycle, intending to ride home. He fell and was unable to lift his motorcycle. As it turned out, this was fortunate for him because he was in fact intoxicated at that time. He was eventually discovered, charged, convicted and sentenced to a fine and to a disqualification order by a District Judge (the “District Judge”): see
Alzate paid the fine and his principal contention in this appeal was that there were “special reasons” owing to which, a disqualification order should not be imposed on him. Having heard submissions from both parties, I found that there was nothing special in his reasons that would justify displacing the disqualification order. I therefore dismissed the appeal, and now explain the grounds for my decision.
FactsAlzate is a 44-year old Singaporean male. He worked as a lecturer at ITE College East from 2009 to 2019 and served as the Head of Enterprise for its Enterprise Development Centre. On 11 June 2020, Alzate met one of his former students from ITE College East, in order to counsel him on the management of his business.
His former student appreciated Alzate’s kindness and brought some whiskey as a gesture of gratitude. They started drinking at about 9 pm and stopped at about 1 am on 12 June 2020. Alzate apparently imbibed about three or four glasses of whiskey.
Alzate had ridden his motorcycle to ITE College East for the meeting at about 5pm and parked it at the basement carpark. After the meeting, he attempted to ride his motorcycle home. As the District Judge put it, this was a “poor decision on his part”: Judgment at [5]. In his state of intoxication, he managed to start his motorcycle and to ride it a short distance within the carpark but he failed to reach the exit. The CCTV footage showed that he lost his balance and fell to the ground together with his motorcycle; he was then unable to lift his motorcycle up and so could not proceed.
When the police arrived at the scene at about 1.28am on 12 June 2020, the officer noted that Alzate “reeked strongly of alcohol”. The officer administered a preliminary breath test which Alzate failed, and he was then arrested and escorted to the station for a Breath Analyzing Device (“BAD”) test. The BAD test was conducted that morning at about 3.31am; it revealed that Alzate’s breath contained 62 microgrammes of alcohol in every 100 millilitres of breath.
Alzate was charged for drink driving under s 67(1)(
You are charged that you, on
12 June 2020 , at about 1.28 a.m., alongthe carpark of ‘ITE East College’ off Simei Avenue , Singapore, whilst riding motorcycleFBN84K , did have so much alcohol in your body that the proportion of it in your breath,to wit , not less than62 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath , exceeded the prescribed limit of 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 67(1)(b) and punishable under Section 67(1) read with Section 67(2)(a) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed).[emphasis in original]
He pleaded guilty to the charge and the District Judge sentenced him to a fine of $4,000 and a disqualification period of 30 months. Dissatisfied with the imposition of the disqualification order, Alzate filed a notice of appeal on the same day. Alzate paid the fine and the District Judge granted a stay of execution on the disqualification order pending the outcome of the appeal.
The District Judge’s decision Before the District Judge, the Prosecution had sought the imposition of a fine of $4,000 and a disqualification from holding or obtaining all classes of driving license (“DQAC”) for a period of 30 months, relying on
The Defence took no issue with the proposed fine: Judgment at [22]. It submitted, however, that the court should exercise its discretion not to impose any disqualification prescribed under s 67(1)(
The Defence also relied on a number of cases, namely: (a)
The District Judge nonetheless considered the cases and observed that, as stated in
The District Judge also had regard to three other cases, namely: (a)
Ultimately, the District Judge concluded that there were no special reasons that justified not imposing the prescribed disqualification order in this case. This was because (Judgment at [69]–[75]):
In respect of the sentence to be imposed, the Prosecution submitted (and the District Judge agreed) that the
Applying that framework, the District Judge found that Alzate’s...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Public Prosecutor v Sinnathamby s/o Arumoh
...of six years.3 In support of his sentencing position, DPP Teh cites the revised sentencing framework in Rafael Voltaire Alzate v PP [2021] SGHC 224 (“Rafael Voltaire”). The DPP also relies on PP v Vijayan Mahadevan [2022] SGDC 22 where the offender, who had a blood alcohol level of approxim......
-
Public Prosecutor v Chow Chee Kin
...In relation to the s 67 offence, the Prosecution relied on the framework laid down in Rafael Voltaire Alzate v Public Prosecutor [2021] SGHC 224 (“Rafael Voltaire Alzate”), which sets out the sentences to be imposed for a drink driving offence under s 67 of the RTA based on the level of alc......
-
Public Prosecutor v Govin s/o Narayan Morthy
...for sentencing an offence for drink driving post 2019 amendments was recently reformulated in Rafael Voltaire Alzate v Public Prosecutor [2021] SGHC 224 ("Rafael Voltaire Alzate") at [31] and re-endorsed in Wu Zhi Yong at [36] and [50] as follows: Level of alcohol (μg per 100ml of breath) R......
-
Public Prosecutor v Vijayan Mahadevan
...sentencing framework was set out in Edwin Suse. The Edwin Suse framework had been revised in the case of Rafael Voltaire Alzate v PP [2021] SGHC 224 (“Rafael”). This was to take into account the increased statutory penalties provided for under s 67(1)(b) of the RTA, which was applicable in ......