Teo Kwee Chuan v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 18 October 1993
• Neutral Citation: [1993] SGHC 250
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 143 of 1993
• Date: 18 October 1993
• Year: 1993
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: James Leslie Ponniah (Wong & Lim)
• Citation: [1993] SGHC 250
• Defendant Counsel: Palaniappan Sundararaj (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Road Traffic,Sentencing,Offences,Drink driving,s 67(1) Road Traffic Act (Cap 276),Words and Phrases,'Second or subsequent conviction',Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Whether previous conviction under s 29(1) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 92, 1973 reprint) rendered present conviction a 'second or subsequent conviction'- s 67(1) Road Traffic Act (Cap 276),Whether previous conviction under s 29(1) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 92, 1973 reprint) rendered present conviction a 'second or subsequent conviction'

The appellant was seen driving erratically at about 1.30am on 20 March 1992. He was arrested and charged for drunken driving under s 67(1) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276) as amended by the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act 1990. The charge read:

You ... are charged that you on 20 March 1992 at about 1.30am along the PIE 14km towards the airport, Singapore, did drive motor car no: EU 6688 G whilst under the influence of drink to such an extent as to render you incapable of having proper control over the aforesaid vehicle and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 67(1) of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act 1990 (Cap 276).

On the occasion mentioned in the charge, the appellant`s blood alcohol level was tested at 92mg per 100ml. The prescribed statutory limit is 80mg per 100ml.

The appellant was convicted of this charge on 22 March 1993 and sentenced to a fine of $3,000, imprisonment for two weeks and disqualification from driving all classes of vehicles for a period of three years. I dismissed his appeal against this sentence and now give reasons for my decision.

The magistrate was informed that the appellant had been convicted in 1984 of `driving under the influence of drink/drugs` contrary to s 29(1) of the then current Road Traffic Act (Cap 92, 1973 reprint) and had been fined $200. The issue was whether the present conviction constituted the 1993 conviction `a second or subsequent conviction` for the purposes of sentencing under s 67(1) of the current Road Traffic Act. The magistrate held that it did. He said he was of the view that:

... although the mandatory jail term for a second offender as provided by s 67(1) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276) was amended in 1990 and the accused`s previous conviction for drunken driving was in 1984, ie before the amendment date of 1990, the mandatory jail term for a second offender as provided by s 67(1) Road Traffic Act 1990 would cover the accused`s previous conviction in 1984 although it was before the amendment in 1990.

In the case of PP v Tan Teck Hin [Criminal Motion No 18 of 1991], it was held that the amendment to s 67(1) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276) on the punishment for a second offence could have retrospective effect to embrace offences committed before the date of amendment.

As this was the second offence committed by the accused for driving whilst under the influence of drinks, it would entail a mandatory jail term under s 67(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1990 (Cap 276). Moreover, deterrence is necessary to discourage the accused and others from driving when they are under the influence of drinks as they could pose a hazard to other road users.

Counsel for the appellant contended that it was not correct to consider the conviction in the present case as the appellant`s second conviction for the purposes of s 67(1). He did not dispute the correctness of PP v Tan Teck Hin. His reasons were founded upon the legislative history of the Road Traffic Act.

Section 29(1) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 92, 1973 reprint) provided as follows:

Any person, who, when driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, is under the influence of drink or of a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of such vehicle, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, and in the case of the second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or to both such fine and imprisonment.

By an amendment statute of 1984, ss 30A and 30B were added. Section 30B read as follows:

Any person who has been arrested under section 29 or 30 of this Act shall be presumed to be incapable of having proper

...