PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v RIZUWAN BIN ROHMAT

Q: Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 62 consider?

The judgment refers to Road Traffic Act (Cap 276). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2023] SGHC 62 High Court (General Division) 17 March 2023 HC/MA 9176/2021/01 31 min read

10 cases cited Cited by 1 case

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	17 March 2023
Judge	Kannan Ramesh
Charges / claim	Criminal Law
Counsel	Allen & Gledhill LLP, Attorney-General's Chambers, Drew & Napier LLC, Aaron Lee Teck Chye, Cheryl Chong, Jonathan Tan, Low Zhe Ning, Ng Yiwen, Sim Bing Wen, Tai Wei Shyong

Source: [2023] SGHC 62, High Court (General Division), decided 17 March 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Criminal Law — Statutory offences — Road Traffic Act

Practice Areas

Criminal Law

Judges (1)

Kannan Ramesh Delivered

Counsel (10)

Allen & Gledhill LLP Firm Attorney-General's Chambers Firm Drew & Napier LLC Firm Aaron Lee Teck Chye Counsel Respondent Cheryl Chong Counsel Respondent Jonathan Tan Counsel Appellant Low Zhe Ning Counsel Respondent Ng Yiwen Counsel Appellant Sim Bing Wen Counsel Amicus Curiae Tai Wei Shyong Counsel Appellant

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Appellant Rizuwan bin Rohmat Respondent

Case Significance

Public Prosecutor v Rizuwan bin Rohmat [2023] SGHC 62 was decided by Kannan Ramesh JAD in the General Division of the High Court on Magistrate's Appeal No 9176 of 2021, with grounds of decision delivered on 17 March 2023. In the court below, the district judge in [2021] SGDC 219 had sentenced the respondent Rizuwan bin Rohmat to a fine of $8,000 (or four weeks' imprisonment in default) and 24 months' disqualification for a charge under s 35(1) of the Road Traffic Act. The Prosecution appealed against sentence, arguing for a five-week custodial term and a review of the general sentencing level in light of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act 2019; Kannan Ramesh JAD allowed the appeal and sentenced the accused to five weeks' imprisonment, leaving the 24-month disqualification undisturbed.

[2023] SGHC 62 explained

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v RIZUWAN BIN ROHMAT ([2023] SGHC 62) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 17 March 2023. It is categorised under Criminal Law. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 1 other reported Singapore judgment, 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 62 about?

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v RIZUWAN BIN ROHMAT ([2023] SGHC 62) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Law — Statutory offences — Road Traffic Act”, 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 62 consider?

The judgment refers to 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 62?

Within this corpus, [2023] SGHC 62 has been cited by 1 later reported Singapore judgment. 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

This was a Prosecution appeal against the sentence imposed on Rizuwan bin Rohmat, who had been fined and disqualified from driving for a charge under section 35(1) of the Road Traffic Act. The Prosecution sought a custodial sentence and a review of sentencing levels following 2019 amendments to the Act. The High Court allowed the appeal, citing aggravating factors, and sentenced the respondent to five weeks' imprisonment while leaving the 24-month disqualification undisturbed.

What was the outcome of Public Prosecutor v Rizuwan bin Rohmat [2023] SGHC 62?

Kannan Ramesh JAD allowed the Prosecution's appeal against sentence and sentenced Rizuwan bin Rohmat to five weeks' imprisonment for the s 35(1) Road Traffic Act charge, replacing the district judge's $8,000 fine while leaving the 24-month disqualification undisturbed.

Why did the Prosecution appeal the sentence in Public Prosecutor v Rizuwan bin Rohmat ([2023] SGHC 62)?

The Prosecution argued a five-week custodial sentence should be imposed and that a review of the general level of sentences under s 35(1) of the Road Traffic Act was justified given the increased sentencing range introduced by the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act 2019 from 1 November 2019.