ADRI SATRYAWAN PRATAMA v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

[2024] SGHC 258 High Court (General Division) 10 October 2024 • HC/MA 9085/2023/01 • 9 min read

4 cases cited Cited by 1 case

Catchwords

Criminal Law — Road Traffic Act – Careless driving Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Appeals

Practice Areas

Criminal Law Criminal Procedure and Sentencing

Judges (1)

Vincent Hoong Delivered

Counsel (5)

Attorney-General's Chambers Firm Niroze Idroos LLC Firm Gabriel Lee Counsel Respondent Mohamed Niroze Idroos Counsel Appellant Sunil Nair Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Respondent Adri Satryawan Pratama Appellant

Case Significance

In Adri Satryawan Pratama v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 258, the General Division of the High Court heard Magistrate's Appeal No 9085 of 2023, an appeal against sentence. The appellant, Adri Satryawan Pratama, had pleaded guilty to a single charge of careless driving causing grievous hurt, an offence under s 65(1)(a) punishable under s 65(3)(a) read with s 65(6)(d) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed). A second charge of careless driving causing hurt, an offence under s 65(1)(a) punishable under s 65(4)(a), was taken into consideration for sentencing with his consent. The District Judge had sentenced him to six weeks' imprisonment, disqualified him from holding or obtaining all classes of driving licences for five years and prohibited him from driving any motor vehicle in Singapore for five years, as recorded in Public Prosecutor v Adri Satryawan Pratama [2023] SGDC 102.

In the appeal against sentence, the appellant submitted that the imprisonment term should be substituted with a fine of $4,000, while not challenging the disqualification and prohibition orders. Vincent Hoong J delivered an ex tempore judgment on 10 October 2024, noting as a preliminary matter that the appellant had been sentenced according to the framework in Sue Chang v Public Prosecutor [2022] SGHC 176, the prevailing framework at the time, before a three-judge panel of the High Court addressed the position in Chen Song v Public Prosecutor and other appeals [2024]. The Attorney-General's Chambers, with Gabriel Lee and Sunil Nair, appeared for the respondent, and Niroze Idroos LLC, with Mohamed Niroze Idroos, for the appellant.

Summary

In this appeal to the General Division of the High Court, the appellant had pleaded guilty to one charge of careless driving causing grievous hurt under the Road Traffic Act, with a second charge of careless driving causing hurt taken into consideration, and the District Judge had sentenced him to six weeks' imprisonment together with disqualification and prohibition orders of five years. The appellant appealed against sentence, seeking that the imprisonment term be substituted with a fine of $4,000, and a preliminary issue arose as to whether the older Sue Chang framework or the newer Chen Song framework applied. The court held that the six-week imprisonment term was not manifestly excessive or otherwise wrong, declined to disturb the disqualification and prohibition orders, and dismissed the appeal against sentence.

What sentence was appealed in Adri Satryawan Pratama v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 258?

The District Judge had sentenced Adri Satryawan Pratama to six weeks' imprisonment, a five-year disqualification from all classes of driving licences, and a five-year prohibition from driving any motor vehicle in Singapore for careless driving causing grievous hurt under s 65(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act.

What did the appellant seek in the appeal in [2024] SGHC 258?

The appellant submitted that the six weeks' imprisonment term should be substituted with a fine of $4,000, while not challenging the disqualification and prohibition orders. Vincent Hoong J delivered an ex tempore judgment on 10 October 2024, noting the relevance of the sentencing frameworks in Sue Chang and Chen Song.