PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v GARRICK ENG KWAN MENG

Facts

Mr Garrick Eng Kwan Meng pleaded guilty to driving without a valid licence under s 35(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 and to driving without third-party insurance under the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act. A charge of using a mobile phone while driving was taken into consideration. On 24 October 2024 a police officer stopped him on Braddell Road for using his phone while driving a van leased by his company. He had held a Class 3 licence, but it was revoked on 14 June 2018 after he was fined and disqualified for five years. That followed a crash in which he lost control of the vehicle he was driving; his first wife died and one of his children was injured, and he was convicted of causing death by a negligent act. After the disqualification he failed the Basic Theory Test while trying to requalify.

The District Judge treated him as a "Qualified Driver" outside the benchmark set for never-licensed drivers in Seah Ming Yang Daryle v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 152, and imposed a fine of $5,000 and 24 months' disqualification, concurrent with the 12-month disqualification on the insurance charge. The Prosecution appealed against the licence sentence in Magistrate's Appeal No 9131 of 2025. A young independent counsel was appointed to assist on the framework for previously licensed drivers.

Issues

1. What sentencing framework applies to previously licensed drivers who drive without a licence under s 35(1)
2. Whether a fine of $5,000 was the right sentence for this offender
3. Whether the disqualification periods for the licence and insurance offences should run consecutively

Holding

The High Court (Sundaresh Menon CJ) allowed the Prosecution's appeal. The $5,000 fine for the licence offence was set aside and replaced with four weeks' imprisonment. The two-year disqualification for that offence was ordered to start when the disqualification for the insurance offence expired.

Reasoning

The court declined the young independent counsel's framework, which turned on the driver's competence. Following the warning in the earlier three-judge decision against assessing driving skill, the court held that losing the right to drive is a matter of legal status, not skill; the heart of the offence is the driver's disregard for the rules that protect other road users. A framework for previously licensed drivers should also fit with the benchmark already set for never-licensed drivers.

The court set aside, for another day, foreigners who fail to convert their licences and drivers whose licences lapse with age, since they lose the right to drive through a regulatory step rather than wrongdoing. Among drivers disabled by law after a finding of guilt, it distinguished those who lose a licence temporarily from those who lose it completely and must requalify. A driver in the second group is more culpable than a never-licensed driver, as he has no licence and also carries the antecedents that led to its loss. The benchmark for such a first offender who pleads guilty and causes no accident is three weeks' imprisonment.

Mr Eng fell into that group. Driving a significant distance with plans to visit sites across Singapore, and the phone offence taken into consideration, raised the sentence to four weeks. Driving for his own convenience and his failed attempt to requalify were neutral.

The disqualification periods should run consecutively, as the earlier decision envisaged a combined three years, and s 42(1) allows any period the court thinks fit. The court also left open the benchmark for drivers under temporary disqualification and observed that fines for driving uninsured should be higher where the driver is licensed, because the uninsured risk is otherwise not captured.

From the judgment