DARYLE SEAH MING YANG v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

[14 June 2024]

Seah Ming Yang Daryle v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 152 General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore — Magistrate’s Appeal No 9149 of 2023

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10 When an Unqualified Driver drives on our roads, the offender poses a potential danger to other road users. This danger is further amplified as the offender who drives without a licence is more likely to cause an accident and result in harm. The harm that s 35(1) of the RTA seeks to prevent is to keep unlicensed drivers off our roads. It reduces the risk of harm to other innocent road users: at [52]-[53].

11 Keeping unlicenced drivers off the roads reduces the risk of innocent road users having to suffer without adequate compensation from the unlicensed drivers, who will not be covered by insurance when there is an accident. Such financial strains could add on to the pain and suffering the victim is already enduring as a result of the wrongdoer’s irresponsible actions: at [54].

12 Section 35(1) RTA offences are difficult to detect. They are typically detected when the offender is stopped by police enforcement action or when the offender is involved in an accident. This leaves the onus of compliance with the RTA on the individual drivers themselves. An emphasis on self-compliance with the laws regulating driving is thus required: at [55].

13 The usual tariff for offences of driving whilst under disqualification under s 43(4) of the RTA was of limited value in determining the benchmark sentence for s 35(1) RTA offences. The former inevitably involved repeat offenders who must have committed road traffic-related offences which caused them to be disqualified before they subsequently drove whilst under disqualification. This persistence in offending revealed an escalating criminality which necessitated a heavier sentence: at [57]-[59].

14 The sentencing framework for drink driving offences under s 67 of the RTA was not relevant for the purposes of setting a benchmark sentence for s 35(1) RTA offences. Drink driving offences are a distinct type of offence targeted at a different group of drivers, using different strategies, as compared to s 35(1) RTA offences. The legislation for both offences is vastly different. The provisions for driving without a valid licence contain harsher imprisonment terms given the higher maximum sentences. Disqualification of an offender’s driving licence features prominently as a punishment for drink driving offences: at [60]-[67].

15 Steven Yang cannot be read to stand for the broad proposition that a custodial sentence should not be readily imposed in all types of offences. It has to be read in the context of its facts, the public policy considerations, and the harm caused in that case: at [68]-[72].

16 A benchmark sentence of two weeks’ imprisonment and two years’ disqualification was appropriate for the archetypal s 35(1) RTA case which involves a first-time offender, who is an Unqualified Driver who pleads guilty, and who does not cause an accident. This benchmark sentence was broadly consistent with the usual tariff of four to eight weeks’ imprisonment for offences of driving whilst under disqualification, considering the similarities and differences between both offences. Both offences involve offenders who put others around them at risk of not receiving adequate compensation if an accident occurs. Both offences are also hard to detect. However, the s 43(4) RTA tariff applies to repeat offenders who have been persistent in disregarding the law. This makes it fair for the benchmark sentence for s 35(1) RTA offences to be at a level below that of the usual tariff for s 43(4) RTA offences. At the same time, given the danger the Unqualified Driver posed to the public at large, two weeks’ imprisonment is an appropriate benchmark sentence: at [73]-[81].

17 The setting of a benchmark sentence does not mean that the court was legislating in place of Parliament by setting a minimum mandatory term. The court was simply deciding on the appropriate sentence for the archetypal case, to promote consistency in sentencing. A fine may still be appropriate in various other situations outside the archetypal case: at [79].

18 Various factors can be considered in adjusting the benchmark sentence for s 35(1) RTA offences: at [82]-[83].

19 It was not disputed that the appellant’s case fell within the archetypal s 35(1) RTA case. The starting sentence was thus two weeks’ imprisonment. Given the appellant’s overall criminality of driving a motor van (a heavier vehicle), at speeds which significantly exceeded the vehicle speed limit, for a substantial distance, for his own commercial benefit whilst he was uninsured, and considering the mitigating factors, an upward adjustment of the benchmark sentence to three weeks’ imprisonment was warranted. Although the appellant was disqualified for 18 months, which was significantly lower than the benchmark sentence of two years’ disqualification, since there was no appeal by the Prosecution on this point, no adjustment was necessary: at [84]-[85] and [91].

20 The assessment of the gravity of an offender’s conduct in offences like driving without a licence cannot be detached from the other circumstances surrounding the manner in which the offender had driven. For an accurate assessment and a fair decision, the court must consider all the circumstances of the case. This would be a reflection of the totality principle which entails a last look at all the facts and circumstances to ensure the overall proportionality of the aggregate sentence. Any concerns about an offender being punished twice for offences arising out of the same act of wrongdoing can be ameliorated by having the sentences run concurrently: at [86]-[89].

21 Given the various aggravating and mitigating factors in the appellant’s case, the benchmark sentence of two weeks’ imprisonment was adjusted to three weeks’ imprisonment. The disqualification of 18 months ordered by the DJ was not adjusted as there was no appeal against it: at [90]-[92].