PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v CHENG CHANG TONG

Facts

On the night of 5 February 2022, Mr Cheng Chang Tong drank four small glasses of Chivas at his shop on Upper Bukit Timah Road and then drove himself and his wife home to Block 220 Petir Road. While reversing into a parallel parking lot there, he failed to keep a proper lookout and hit the right side of a parked car, causing scratches and dents costing $2,400 to repair, which he later paid in full. He went home without informing the owner, who found the damage about two hours later and called the police. A breath test at about 3.27am showed 85μg of alcohol per 100ml of breath, against a limit of 35μg.

He pleaded guilty to drink driving and to careless driving as both a repeat offender, because of speeding convictions in 1998 and 2004, and a serious offender, because the careless driving was accompanied by a drink-driving conviction. A charge of failing to give his particulars to the car owner was taken into consideration. The District Judge fined him $7,000 with three years' disqualification for drink driving, and $4,000 with 30 months' disqualification for careless driving. The Prosecution appealed in Magistrate's Appeal No 9139 of 2022 only against the $4,000 fine for careless driving.

Issues

1. Whether the sentencing framework in Wu Zhi Yong v Public Prosecutor for dangerous driving gives useful guidance for careless driving by a repeat and serious offender.
2. Whether the District Judge erred in placing the offence in Band 1 rather than Band 2 of that framework.
3. What sentence should be imposed for the careless driving offence.

Holding

See Kee Oon J allowed the Prosecution's appeal, holding that the $4,000 fine for careless driving was manifestly inadequate. The court set it aside and sentenced the respondent to two weeks' imprisonment, in addition to the 30-month disqualification already ordered.

Reasoning

On the framework, the respondent argued that Wu Zhi Yong v Public Prosecutor [2022] 4 SLR 587 was confined to dangerous driving under s 64(2C), and that Parliament treated dangerous driving as more serious. The court disagreed. The Prosecution did not say the framework applied directly, only that the two offences were of similar seriousness. For a repeat and serious offender under s 65(5)(b) read with s 65(5)(c), the maximum imprisonment is the same 24 months as in Wu Zhi Yong, and the minimum disqualification is the same two years; only the fine ranges differ slightly. Wu Zhi Yong also concerned a first offender, whereas the respondent was a repeat offender.

On the band, the court observed that the District Judge had not followed the framework's structure. Following Wu Zhi Yong, alcohol level is central: a reading in the highest or second-highest band of Rafael Voltaire Alzate v Public Prosecutor [2022] 3 SLR 993 will likely place a case at least in Band 2. There were at least two further aggravating factors. There was serious potential harm, because the respondent drove at least 1.6km through a residential area with vehicles and pedestrians nearby, with his wife as a passenger. There was also actual property damage. Band 2 applied, with a starting point of one month's imprisonment.

At the second step, the District Judge had given too little weight to the respondent's status as a serious offender and had not considered his compounded offences, including recent ones for inconsiderate driving in 2012 and crossing double white lines in 2020. His explanations for leaving the scene were unproven. The argument that jailing him for careless driving while fining him for drink driving was double punishment was answered by the totality principle. His early plea, cooperation and restitution justified reducing the starting point to two weeks, but did not bring the case below the custody threshold.

From the judgment