HALEEM BATHUSA BIN ABDUL RAHIM v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Q: Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 41 consider?

The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), Evidence Act (Cap 97), Penal Code (Cap 224), and Road Traffic Act (Cap 276). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2023] SGHC 41 High Court (General Division) 22 February 2023 HC/MA 9184/2022/01 31 min read

11 cases cited Cited by 2 cases

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

I thus dismiss the appeal against conviction and sentence.

Source: [2023] SGHC 41, High Court (General Division), decided 22 February 2023. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	22 February 2023
Judge	Vincent Hoong
Charges / claim	Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
Outcome	Appeal dismissed
Counsel	Attorney-General's Chambers, Sanders Law LLC, Sarbrinder Singh s/o Naranjan Singh, Tay Yu E, Tin Shu Min

Source: [2023] SGHC 41, High Court (General Division), decided 22 February 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Criminal Law — Offences — Voluntarily Causing Hurt — Road rage Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Principles — Road rage

Practice Areas

Criminal Law Criminal Procedure and Sentencing

Judges (1)

Vincent Hoong Delivered

Counsel (5)

Attorney-General's Chambers Firm Sanders Law LLC Firm Sarbrinder Singh s/o Naranjan Singh Counsel Appellant Tay Yu E Counsel Appellant Tin Shu Min Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Respondent Haleem Bathusa Bin Abdul Rahim Appellant

Case Significance

In this ex tempore judgment delivered 22 February 2023 by Vincent Hoong J (Magistrate's Appeal No 9184 of 2022/01), a 46-year-old Singaporean property agent, Haleem Bathusa bin Abdul Rahim, appealed against his conviction and sentence of five weeks' imprisonment for one charge under s 323 of the Penal Code of voluntarily causing hurt to another driver in a road rage incident. In the early morning of 1 February 2020, the appellant, driving alone in his BMW along the Bukit Timah Expressway towards his residence at Hillview Rise, swerved out of his lane in front of the victim's car; the victim sounded his horn and flashed his headlight, leading to a verbal exchange between them. Vincent Hoong J dismissed both the appeal against conviction and the appeal against sentence.

[2023] SGHC 41 explained

HALEEM BATHUSA BIN ABDUL RAHIM v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2023] SGHC 41) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 22 February 2023. It is categorised under Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure and Sentencing. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 2 other reported Singapore judgments, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2023] SGHC 41 about?

HALEEM BATHUSA BIN ABDUL RAHIM v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2023] SGHC 41) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Law — Offences — Voluntarily Causing Hurt — Road rage” and “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Principles — Road rage”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 41 consider?

The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), Evidence Act (Cap 97), Penal Code (Cap 224), and Road Traffic Act (Cap 276). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

How influential is [2023] SGHC 41?

Within this corpus, [2023] SGHC 41 has been cited by 2 later reported Singapore judgments. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.

Summary

Haleem Bathusa Bin Abdul Rahim appealed against his conviction and sentence for one charge under s 323 of the Penal Code for voluntarily causing hurt to another motorist during a road rage altercation on an expressway, for which he had received five weeks' imprisonment. The court dismissed the appeals against both conviction and sentence, set aside the five-week term and imposed a seven-week term instead, and ordered a nine-month driving disqualification from his date of release.

What did the court decide in Haleem Bathusa v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGHC 41?

Vincent Hoong J dismissed both appeals against conviction and sentence. Haleem Bathusa bin Abdul Rahim, a 46-year-old property agent, had been convicted under s 323 of the Penal Code for voluntarily causing hurt in a road rage incident and sentenced to five weeks' imprisonment.

What happened in the Bukit Timah Expressway road rage case ([2023] SGHC 41)?

In the early morning of 1 February 2020, Haleem Bathusa bin Abdul Rahim, driving his BMW along the Bukit Timah Expressway, swerved across lanes in front of the victim's car, prompting horn-sounding and a verbal exchange. He was convicted under s 323 of the Penal Code and sentenced to five weeks' imprisonment.