Song Chao v Public Prosecutor

On the evening of 2 September 2023 the appellant, Song Chao, drank four to five glasses of beer at a restaurant in Chinatown and then drove home alone, feeling very sleepy. On South Bridge Road at around 10.58pm, his car drifted left without signalling and its right side struck the rear of a police truck parked with its hazard and strobe lights on. Visibility was clear, the road was dry and traffic was light; no one was hurt. He reversed and moved forward intending to drive off, but a police officer stood in front of the car to stop him. His breath showed 78 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres. Repairs to the truck cost $17,068.27, which he paid in full.

He pleaded guilty to drink driving under s 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 and to careless driving, for which his drink driving conviction made him a serious offender under s 64(8), attracting enhanced punishment under s 65(5)(c). The District Judge imposed five weeks' imprisonment and 48 months' disqualification on each charge, to run concurrently. He appealed in Magistrate's Appeal No 9138 of 2025, asking that each imprisonment term be cut to one week and each disqualification period be reduced from 48 months to 36.

1. Whether, and how, the sentencing framework in Wu Zhi Yong v Public Prosecutor [2022] 4 SLR 587 for reckless or dangerous driving by serious offenders should be adapted to careless driving by serious offenders
2. Whether five weeks' imprisonment and 48 months' disqualification were excessive for the careless driving charge
3. Whether the sentence for the drink driving charge was excessive, including whether the attempt to drive off was double counted

The court held the Wu Zhi Yong framework could be adapted, as the two offences share their key elements and sentencing factors. Because the maximum imprisonment for careless driving by a serious offender is 75% of that for reckless or dangerous driving by a serious offender, it scaled the imprisonment ranges to 75%, giving a Band 1 ceiling of three weeks and a Band 2 range of three weeks to nine months, with the disqualification ranges unchanged. It rejected the appellant's proposed one-week ceiling as too narrow.

The case fell in Band 2: his alcohol level was in the second highest drink driving band, he tried to drive away and was stopped only by the officer, and the damage was substantial and foreseeable given the violent impact. Potential harm was not serious enough to aggravate. A starting point of 5½ weeks was adjusted for restitution, his compounded speeding and mobile phone offences, and the modest discount for a guilty plea entered on the first day of trial, giving five weeks. Comparable precedents supported this, and a disqualification above three years was warranted.

For drink driving, the case fell within the slight harm and medium culpability cell of the governing harm-culpability matrix, with up to two months' imprisonment. The District Judge's starting point of about five weeks was too high; about three weeks was appropriate. Using the attempt to flee on both charges was not impermissible double counting, since concurrent sentences avoided any prejudice, but drunkenness itself could not aggravate a drink driving charge, and sleepiness carried little weight on the thin facts. The 48-month disqualification was justified by the harm caused.

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, as to the drink driving imprisonment term only. It upheld the sentence on the careless driving charge and the 48-month disqualification on the drink driving charge, but reduced the imprisonment term for drink driving from five weeks to three weeks. The judgment opens by saying the appeal is dismissed; with the sentences running concurrently, the global term of five weeks' imprisonment and the 48-month disqualification after release remained.