LEE SHIN NAN (LI XUNNAN) v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Facts

Mr Lee Shin Nan appealed in Magistrate's Appeal No 9066 of 2023 against the sentence imposed on him in the State Courts. He had pleaded guilty to driving with alcohol in his breath above the prescribed limit under s 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1961, which was his third conviction for that offence; his earlier convictions were in 2009 and 2012. The admitted facts were that after drinking beer at a coffeeshop on Serangoon Road, he drove his car and was stopped at a police roadblock on Petain Road shortly after midnight on 26 June 2022. A breath test showed 89µg of alcohol per 100ml of breath, against a limit of 35µg.

The district judge sentenced him to eight weeks' imprisonment, a fine of $10,000 and disqualification from driving for life. Mr Lee paid the fine but appealed against the jail term and the lifetime ban. He also filed two criminal motions to adduce further evidence, said to support his account that he had intended to use a valet and only drove because an angry stranger whose car he had blocked confronted him. Because no settled approach existed for sentencing repeat drink drivers after the 2019 amendments, the Chief Justice appointed a young independent counsel to assist.

Issues

1. Whether a sentencing framework should be laid down for repeat drink driving offences under s 67(1) of the Road Traffic Act, and in what form
2. Whether special reasons existed to order a shorter period than lifetime disqualification under s 67(2A)
3. When the court should invoke the enhanced penalty power under s 67A of the Act
4. Whether the district judge erred in imposing eight weeks' imprisonment, a $10,000 fine and lifetime disqualification

Holding

Sundaresh Menon CJ dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence of eight weeks' imprisonment, a fine of $10,000 (in default one month's imprisonment) and disqualification from holding or obtaining all classes of driving licences for life. The further evidence was found irrelevant and did not support Mr Lee's account. The court set out a new four-stage framework for sentencing repeat drink driving offenders.

Reasoning

On the framework, the court agreed with counsel and the Prosecution that the framework in Rafael Voltaire Alzate v Public Prosecutor [2022] 3 SLR 993, built for first offenders, could not be applied directly because repeat offences carry higher fines, mandatory imprisonment and longer disqualification. It rejected parts of both proposals put to it, including the Prosecution's idea of tying a later sentence to the offender's previous sentence, since the core of the offence is the alcohol level on the present occasion. The resulting framework starts from the first-offender band for the alcohol level with an uplift to the fine and disqualification, adjusts for the circumstances of the repetition (such as the gap between convictions and any escalating trend), then for aggravating and mitigating factors, and finally sets the mandatory jail term separately, mainly by reference to deterrence, in bands described as serious, more serious and most serious.

On special reasons, the court held these are exceptional and relate to the offence, not the offender. They will generally be found only where driving was reasonably needed to avoid other likely and serious harm and there was no reasonable alternative.

On s 67A, the court treated the enhanced penalty as a separate inquiry at the end of sentencing, to be used only where the ordinary sentence is insufficient for deterrence and prevention. As both sides agreed s 67A did not arise, its remarks on when it applies were provisional.

Applying the framework, the alcohol level was at the very top of the second highest band and this was a third conviction, though after a long gap. The guilty plea, the absence of harm and the lack of dangerous driving justified the reduction to a $10,000 fine. The alleged pressure from the stranger was not proved, a short distance is not a special reason, and Mr Lee had many alternatives to driving, so the lifetime ban stood. The case fell in the serious band, and the eight-week term properly reflected the long interval since the last conviction.

From the judgment