Silvalingam Sinnasamy v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 29 June 2001
• Date: 29 June 2001
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 44 of 2001
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Silvalingam Sinnasamy

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[2001] SGHC 154

Yong Pung How CJ

Magistrate's Appeal No 44 of 2001

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Sentencing–Penalties–Drink driving–Whether accused a second-time offender for purpose of sentencing under s 67 (1) (b) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 1997 Rev Ed)–Whether sentence manifestly excessive–Section 68 (1) Road Traffic Act (Cap 92, 1970 Rev Ed)–Section 67 (1) Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 1997 Rev Ed)

The accused pleaded guilty in the District Court to a charge under s 67 (1) (b)of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 1997 Rev Ed) (“RTA”) for driving while he had alcohol in his body that exceeded the prescribed limit. The accused had previously been convicted under the former s 68 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 92, 1970 Rev Ed) for driving while under the influence of drink to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle. The judge treated the accused as a second-time offender and sentenced him to the enhanced punishment prescribed for such in s 67 (1).

The accused appealed against the sentence. He submitted that the former s 68 (1) and the current s 67 (1) (b) created distinct offences, and therefore he should not be treated as a second-time offender.

Further, the accused submitted that the sentence of five weeks' imprisonment, a fine of $7,000, and disqualification from driving for six years imposed by the judge was manifestly excessive. The accused was in the process of reversing his car into a parking lot when he hit the front bumper of another car. There was some slight damage to the bumper, but nothing substantial. In addition, his previous conviction occurred ten years ago. The accused was found to have 272mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood, way above the prescribed limit of 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The accused should be treated as a second-time offender. Section 67 (1) did not draw a distinction between ss 67 (1) (a) and 67 (1) (b) for the purposes of enhanced penalties for second-time offenders. Thus, if a person had first been convicted under s 67 (1) (a), which was a re-enactment of the former s 68, that would count as a first conviction under s 67 (1). If he was subsequently convicted under s 67 (1) (b), that would be that person's second conviction under s 67 (1), and the enhanced penalties for second-time offenders would follow: at [10].

(2) Notably, both ss 67 (1) (a) and 67 (1) (b)came under the same section heading, “Driving while under influence of drink or drugs”. Both of them sought to discourage the same mischief, driving while in an intoxicated state, and Parliament had made it clear from the language of s 67 (1) that, regardless of whether the first conviction came...