PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v GARRICK ENG KWAN MENG
Outcome
Appeal allowedI allowed the appeal and set aside the fine of $5,000 imposed by the DJ for the RTA Charge, substituting it with a term of four weeks’ imprisonment.
Source: [2026] SGHC 116, High Court (General Division), decided 26 May 2026. Read directly from the judgment.
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 25–31 May 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Sundaresh Menon |
| Charges / claim | Criminal Procedure and Sentencing, Road Traffic |
| Outcome | Appeal allowed |
| Sentence / award | $5,000 |
| Counsel | Attorney-General's Chambers, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore, Andrew Low, Marcus Teo, Nicholas Khoo |
Source: [2026] SGHC 116, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (5)
Case Significance
Public Prosecutor v Eng Kwan Meng Garrick [2026] SGHC 116 is a High Court General Division decision by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, delivered on 26 May 2026. Mr Garrick Eng Kwan Meng had pleaded guilty in the District Court to driving without a valid motor vehicle licence under s 35(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 and using a vehicle without third-party insurance under the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act 1960; a further charge of driving while using a mobile phone was taken into consideration. The District Judge sentenced Mr Eng to a fine of $5,000 (in default ten days' imprisonment) and 24 months' disqualification for the Road Traffic Act charge. The Prosecution appealed against that sentence. The Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore appeared as third party counsel (Marcus Teo); Attorney-General's Chambers (Andrew Low, Nicholas Khoo) appeared for the Prosecution. The judgment cites 12 Singapore authorities and engages the Road Traffic Act and the Penal Code.
[2026] SGHC 116 explained
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v GARRICK ENG KWAN MENG ([2026] SGHC 116) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 26 May 2026. It is categorised under Criminal Procedure and Sentencing and Road Traffic. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. 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 [2026] SGHC 116 about?
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v GARRICK ENG KWAN MENG ([2026] SGHC 116) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Appeals” and “Road Traffic — Offences — Driving without a licence — Section 35(1) Road Traffic Act 1961”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2026] SGHC 116 consider?
The judgment refers to 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.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGHC 116 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2024] SGHC 152. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
What sentencing issue did Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon address in Public Prosecutor v Eng Kwan Meng Garrick [2026] SGHC 116?
In [2026] SGHC 116, the Prosecution appealed a District Court sentence of a $5,000 fine and 24 months' disqualification imposed on Garrick Eng Kwan Meng for driving without a valid licence under s 35(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1961. Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon heard the matter on 22 April 2026 and issued grounds on 26 May 2026.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (12)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Sentencing outcomes for this offence
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGHC 116)