PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v RIZUWAN BIN ROHMAT

Facts

Rizuwan bin Rohmat ran a parcel delivery business, 1K Enterprise. On 6 September 2020 he drove one of its vans to make deliveries and later, with his wife and three children on board, along Woodlands Close in the rain. At about 4.24pm he failed to keep a proper lookout and ran into the rear of a car stopped at a red light, causing minor damage and no injuries. He offered to settle with the other driver, but refused to hand over his licence and drove off with his family. Chased by police, he parked at a car park and ran off, leaving his family in the van. He held only a provisional licence and had failed his driving tests, so he had no valid licence and no insurance cover.

He pleaded guilty to driving without a licence under s 35(1) of the Road Traffic Act, careless driving, and driving without insurance, with two further charges taken into consideration. The District Judge fined him $8,000 (in default four weeks' imprisonment) and disqualified him for 24 months on the s 35 charge. The Prosecution appealed against that sentence in Magistrate's Appeal No 9176 of 2021, seeking imprisonment and guidance on sentencing after the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act 2019 raised the penalties. The court appointed a young amicus curiae, Mr Sim Bing Wen, and the respondent obtained pro bono counsel.

Issues

1. Whether a sentencing framework should be laid down for offences under s 35(1) of the Road Traffic Act.
2. Whether that framework should take the form of a sentencing matrix or a benchmark for an archetypal case, and what the benchmark should be.
3. Whether the fine imposed on the respondent was manifestly inadequate.

Holding

Kannan Ramesh JAD allowed the Prosecution's appeal and sentenced the respondent to five weeks' imprisonment on the s 35 charge, in place of the fine. The 24 months' disqualification, which was not appealed, remained.

Reasoning

The judge held that a framework was appropriate because s 35(1) charges are common and guidance would promote consistency; the scarcity of decisions under the amended law was no bar, as a framework can be revisited later.

He preferred the Prosecution's benchmark approach to the amicus's harm-and-culpability matrix. The Prosecution's survey of 500 cases showed the offence overwhelmingly took one form: a driver who had never held a licence for the vehicle, caught through police enforcement rather than an accident. A benchmark also kept s 35(1) consistent with driving while disqualified under s 43(4), which shares its mischief and, since the 2019 amendments, identical penalties. The matrix would send a driver whose licence had merely lapsed to prison whenever an accident caused moderate harm, even if the lapse had nothing to do with the accident.

Drawing on parliamentary debates and M V Balakrishnan v Public Prosecutor [1998] SGHC 416, the judge defined the archetypal case as an unqualified driver not involved in an accident, leaving open the approach for drivers whose licences had lapsed and for s 35(2). Aligning with the usual tariff for s 43(4) offences, he set the benchmark at four weeks' imprisonment, to be adjusted for factors such as the reason for driving, manner and length of driving, any accident, passengers, attempts to evade arrest, antecedents and charges taken into consideration.

Here the case was broadly archetypal as the accident was minor, and the respondent had offered to settle, had no driving antecedents and pleaded guilty early. But he drove a long way in the rain carrying his family, caused damage, fled to evade arrest and had two related charges taken into consideration, warranting an uplift to five weeks.

From the judgment