Tang Ling Lee v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: See Kee Oon J
• Judgment Date: 25 January 2018
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 9239 of 2017
• Date: 25 January 2018

Tang Ling Lee

and

Public Prosecutor

[2018] SGHC 18

See Kee Oon J

Magistrate's Appeal No 9239 of 2017

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Benchmark sentences — Offender causing grievous hurt by negligent act which endangered human life in road traffic case — Approach to sentencing for road traffic cases under s 338(b) of Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) — Whether sentence imposed on offender was manifestly excessive — Section 338(b) Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The sentencing practice for road traffic cases in which the offender was charged under s 338(b) of the Penal Code lacked sufficient coherence and consistency; thus, a basic analytical framework was needed to foster greater consistency and predictability in this area of sentencing practice. This framework only applied to road traffic cases that came under s 338(b) of the Penal Code: at [22] to [24].

(2) The sentencing framework consisted of three broad sentencing bands, within which the severity of the offence and thus the appropriate sentence to be imposed were determined based on the harm caused by the offence and the culpability of the offender. The degree of harm caused would generally refer to the nature and degree of grievous bodily injury caused to the victim(s). In this regard, the period of hospitalisation or medical leave would be a rough-and-ready proxy for the severity of the injuries, in so far as it represented a medical professional's opinion as to the length of time required for treatment of the injuries and for the victim to resume his daily activities. The degree of culpability would generally refer to the degree of relative blameworthiness disclosed by an offender's actions, and was measured chiefly in relation to the extent and manner of the offender's involvement in the criminal act, including the manner and circumstances of driving: at [25]–[29].

There were three sentencing bands in the sentencing framework where the accused claimed trial. Category 1 applied to cases where there were lesser harm and lower culpability, and the applicable presumptive sentencing range was a fine. Category 2 applied to cases where there were greater harm and lower culpability, or lesser harm and higher culpability, and the applicable presumptive sentencing range was one to two weeks' imprisonment. Category 3 applied to cases where there were greater harm and higher culpability and the applicable presumptive sentencing range was more than two weeks' imprisonment: at [31] and [34] to [36].

The court should undertake a two-step inquiry in determining the appropriate sentence. First, the court should identify the sentencing band within which the offence in question fell, and also where the particular case fell within the applicable presumptive sentencing range, having regard to the twin considerations of harm and culpability, in order to derive the starting point sentence. Second, further adjustments should then be made to take into account the relevant mitigating and aggravating factors, which might take the eventual sentence out of the applicable presumptive sentencing range. In the final analysis, the appropriate sentence to be imposed would be the product of a fact-sensitive exercise of discretion, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. An appropriate period of disqualification should also be ordered: at [32] and [33].

In the present case, the offender's culpability was on the moderate to high side. She had completely failed to keep a proper lookout and had proceeded with the right turn without paying heed at all to possible oncoming traffic with the right of way, thus failing to notice the victim's oncoming motorcycle. Taking into account the substantial injuries occasioned to the victim, this case fell in the lower end of the Category 3 sentencing band. The offender had pleaded guilty and shown remorse, and had also had an unblemished driving record for over 20 years. She had stopped to render assistance to the victim. These mitigating factors warranted a lower sentence than an imprisonment term of above two weeks as suggested in the Category 3 sentencing band. However, they did not outweigh the need for a custodial sentence given the considerable extent of harm occasioned and her level of culpability. There was no reason to differ from the district judge's view as to the appropriate sentence: at [41] to [44] and [48].

Case(s) referred to

Edwin s/o Suse Nathen v PP [2013] 4 SLR 1139 (folld)

Lee-Teh Har Eng v PP Magistrate's Appeal No 9099 of 2016 (refd)

PP v Aw Tai Hock [2017] 5 SLR 1141 (refd)

PP v Chua Che Beng Magistrate's Arrest Case No 902750 of 2015 (refd)

PP v Ganesan Sivasankar [2017] 5 SLR 681 (folld)

PP v Han Peck Hoe [2014] SGDC 58 (refd)

PP v Hue An Li [2014] 4 SLR 661 (folld)

PP v Ishak bin Ismail Magistrate's Arrest Case No 901086 of 2015 (refd)

PP v Koh Thiam Huat [2017] 4 SLR 1099 (folld)

PP v Ong Poh Chuan Magistrate's Arrest Case No 906872 of 2015 (refd)

PP v Poh Teck Huat [2003] 2 SLR(R) 299; [2003] 2 SLR 299 (not folld)

PP v Tan Cheng Lee Magistrate's Arrest Case No 908397 of 2014 (refd)

Stansilas Fabian Kester v PP [2017] 5 SLR 755 (folld)

Facts

Tang Ling Lee (“the offender”) had pleaded guilty to one charge of causing grievous hurt by a negligent act which endangered human life, an offence under s 338(b) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed). She was sentenced to one week's imprisonment and was also disqualified from driving or obtaining a licence to drive all classes of vehicles for two years with effect from the date of conviction. She brought an appeal against the sentence of one week's imprisonment.

The offender was making a right turn while driving her vehicle along Ang Mo Kio Avenue 8 towards Ang Mo Kio Avenue 6, when she collided with the victim, a motorcyclist, who was riding straight along Ang Mo Kio Avenue 8 and had the right of way. She had not kept a proper lookout and had made no effort to check for oncoming vehicles before executing the right turn. She did not stop at the right turning pocket to look out for oncoming traffic. The victim suffered serious injuries, including multiple fractures, and had to undergo 12 surgeries in the span of two months. He was hospitalised for 69 days in all at Tan Tock Seng Hospital after the accident. Upon his discharge, he was given 180 days' hospitalisation leave.

Legislation referred to

Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 338(b) (consd)

Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 64(1)

Tan Wen Cheng Adrian and Janus Low (August Law Corporation) for the appellant;

Houston Johannus (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the respondent.

25 January 2018

See Kee Oon J:

Introduction

1 This was an appeal against the sentence of imprisonment in respect of a charge of causing grievous hurt by a negligent act which endangered human life, an offence under s 338(b) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed). The charge read as follows:

You … are charged that on 16 September 2016 at or about 9.06 p.m., at the signalized junction of Ang Mo Kio Avenue 8 and Ang Mo Kio Avenue 5, Singapore, being the driver of motor car SJM3906E, did cause grievous hurt to one Vikaramen S/O A Elangovan, a male Indian aged 27 years old (‘Vikaramen’), who was the rider of motorcycle FBH4147T, by doing an act so negligent as to endanger human life, to wit, by failing to keep a proper look out while making a right turn at the signalized junction in the direction of Ang Mo Kio Ave 5, thereby colliding into the said motorcycle, which was travelling from your opposite direction along Ang Mo Kio Ave 8 towards Bishan Road, thereby causing grievous bodily injuries to Vikaramen such as multiple fractures, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 338(b) of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

2 The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge in the proceedings below and was sentenced to one week's imprisonment. She was also disqualified from driving or obtaining a licence to drive all classes of vehicles for two years with effect from 26 July 2017, the date of conviction. Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed against the sentence imposed. The appellant stated, however, that she was only appealing against the one-week imprisonment term imposed and not the disqualification order.

3 After hearing submissions from the parties, I dismissed the appeal. I delivered a brief oral judgment in doing so. These are the full grounds of my decision.

The facts

4 On 16 September 2016, the appellant was driving with her two young children in the car at about 9.06pm. She had made a right turn while driving her vehicle along Ang Mo Kio Avenue 8 towards Ang Mo Kio Avenue 6. This was a major traffic junction. The weather and road conditions were normal and traffic was light. The appellant's vehicle was on the second lane, which permitted vehicles to turn right into Ang Mo Kio Avenue 6 as well as head straight. The only vehicle approaching from the opposite side of the road at the time was the victim's motorcycle. He was riding straight along Ang Mo Kio Avenue 8 on the innermost left lane and the traffic lights were green in his favour.

5...