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.

[2026] SGHC 116 — PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v GARRICK ENG KWAN MENG

SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE

26 May 2026

Case summary

Public Prosecutor v Eng Kwan Meng Garrick

Magistrate’s Appeal No 9131 of 2025

Decision of the General Division of the High Court (comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ):

Outcome: The General Division of the High Court allowed the Prosecution’s appeal against sentence for the offence under s 35(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (2020 Rev Ed). The court set aside the sentence imposed by the District Judge and sentenced the respondent to a term of four weeks’ imprisonment and a two-year disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving licence on all classes of vehicles (“DQ Period”). The DQ Period was to take effect upon the expiry of the DQ Period imposed for the charge under s 3(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act 1960 (2020 Rev Ed).

Pertinent and significant points of the judgment

• The court laid down a starting benchmark sentence of three weeks’ imprisonment and a two-year DQ Period for an archetypal s 35(1) RTA case which involves a Qualified Driver who has lost his licence completely, and then drives without a licence: at [55].

Introduction

1 The respondent, Mr Garrick Eng Kwan Meng (“Mr Eng”), pleaded guilty in the District Court to two charges. The first was a charge under s 35(1) punishable under s 35(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (2020 Rev Ed) (“RTA”) for driving without a valid motor vehicle licence (“RTA Charge”). The second was a charge under s 3(1)(a) punishable under s 3(2) read with s 3(3) of the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act 1960 (2020 Rev Ed) (“MVA”) for using a motor vehicle without a policy of insurance or security in respect of third-party risks as required by the MVA (“MVA Charge”). A third charge for driving while using a mobile phone under s 65B(1) of the RTA was taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing.

2 In respect of the RTA Charge, the learned District Judge (“DJ”) sentenced Mr Eng to a fine of $5,000 (in default ten days’ imprisonment) and disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving licence on all classes of vehicles (“DQ Period”) for a period of 24 months. In reaching his decision, the DJ was of the view that where an offender was a Qualified Driver (meaning a driver who once held a valid licence but who had failed to renew or validate it prior to the offence: Public Prosecutor v Rizuwan bin Rohmat [2024] 3 SLR 694 (“Rizuwan bin Rohmat”) at [39] and Seah Ming Yang Daryle v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 152 (“Daryle Seah”) at [19]), the indicative starting sentence ought to be a fine.

3 This was the Prosecution’s appeal against the sentence imposed on Mr Eng in respect of the RTA Charge. The court allowed the appeal.

Decision

The Young Independent Counsel’s proposed sentencing framework should not be adopted

4 The court rejected the Young Independent Counsel’s (“YIC”) proposed sentencing framework for three reasons. First, it focused on the offender’s driving competence, which runs squarely against the warning in Daryle Seah that the court should avoid assessing a driver’s skill in the context of sentencing offences under s 35(1) of the RTA. The focus in calibrating the appropriate sentence under s 35(1) of the RTA should not be on “competence” in the sense of how well the offender drives. Instead, the linchpin of the offence lies in the degree to which the offender’s conduct discloses a disregard for the safety of others: at [39]–[42].

5 Second, the focus on the offender’s driving skill may suggest that “competent” or “semi-competent” drivers, as defined by the YIC, are less culpable than other Qualified Drivers. However, this is not necessarily the case, because the assessment of the offender’s culpability may turn on other considerations, such as the offender’s pattern of driving or his reasons for driving: at [43].

6 Third, any sentencing framework developed for Qualified Drivers should be consistent with the sentencing framework for Unqualified Drivers (meaning a driver who had never held a valid driving licence for the class of vehicles he or she was driving: Rizuwan bin Rohmat at [39] and Daryle Seah at [3]) set out in Daryle Seah, given that both concern the same offence under s 35(1) of the RTA: at [44].

The appropriate sentencing framework

7 The court first addressed two categories of Qualified Drivers. The first comprised foreigners holding driving licences and failed to convert their foreign licence or renew an expiring one. The second comprised drivers whose licences ceased to be in force upon reaching a prescribed age. Both categories are sui generis in that the drivers concerned have not lost their lawful right to drive due to any wrongdoing on their part. As Mr Eng did not fall into either category, the court declined to set out sentencing guidelines for this category of Qualified Drivers: at [47]–[50].

8 The remaining Qualified Drivers are drivers who are disabled from driving by the operation of law following a finding of guilt. These Qualified Drivers can be classified into two categories: (a) Qualified Drivers who lose their licence temporarily; and (b) Qualified Drivers who lose their licence completely: at [51]–[52].

9 As Mr Eng was a Qualified Driver who lost his licence completely, the court addressed the benchmark sentence for this category of Qualified Drivers. A Qualified Driver who has lost his licence completely is a driver whose culpability is greater than the archetypal Unqualified Driver. This is because a Qualified Driver who has lost his licence completely not only lacks a valid licence entirely – and is therefore neither qualified nor competent to drive either in fact or in law – but will invariably also have a string of driving related antecedents that led to the disqualification in the first place. The benchmark sentence for a Qualified Driver who has been disqualified or suspended and has therefore lost his licence completely, and then drives without a licence, is a term of imprisonment of three weeks. As with the benchmark sentence in Daryle Seah, this benchmark sentence applies to a first-time offender who pleads guilty and who does not cause an accident: at [53]–[56].

The appropriate sentence for the RTA Charge

10 Mr Eng was a Qualified Driver who lost his licence completely. He did not cause an accident and was a first-time offender. He also pleaded guilty to the RTA Charge. The starting point was therefore an imprisonment term of three weeks. There were two other factors that aggravated the offence: first, Mr Eng drove a significant distance from his residence before being stopped, and had intended to go to multiple locations spanning two distinct parts of Singapore; second, a charge for driving while using a mobile phone was taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing: at [58]–[59].

11 Mr Eng’s reason for driving, namely that he was driving for his own personal benefit and convenience, was a neutral factor. The fact that Mr Eng drove despite having attempted and failed to requalify for his driving licence was also a neutral factor: at [60]–[61].

12 The DJ was incorrect to order the DQ Periods for the RTA Charge and the MVA Charge to run concurrently. The court ordered the DQ Periods for the RTA Charge and the MVA Charge to run consecutively in order to achieve the necessary deterrent effect: at [62]–[64].

Overall sentence

13 The court set aside the sentence imposed by the DJ in respect of the RTA Charge and sentenced Mr Eng to a term of four weeks’ imprisonment and a two-year DQ Period. The DQ Period for the RTA Charge was to take effect upon the expiry of the DQ Period imposed for the MVA Charge. The appeal was accordingly allowed: at [65].

Coda on the sentencing precedents for offences under s 43(4) of the RTA

14 The court observed that it may be necessary for the courts to re-assess the sentencing ranges for offences under s 43(4) of the RTA in light of the benchmark sentences for offences under s 35(1) of the RTA laid down in Daryle Seah and the present case: at [66]–[70].

Coda on the sentencing precedents for offences under s 3(1) of the MVA

15 The court also observed that when an offender who holds a valid driving licence commits an offence under s 3(1) of the MVA, the sentencing court must ensure that the potential harm in terms of unrecoverable damages is sufficiently taken into account in calibrating the appropriate sentence: at [72]–[73].

This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s judgment. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s judgment.

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v GARRICK ENG KWAN MENG

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (1)

Counsel (5)

Parties (2)

Case Significance

Summary

What sentencing issue did Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon address in Public Prosecutor v Eng Kwan Meng Garrick [2026] SGHC 116?

Statutes Cited

Cases Cited (12)

Judgment