1 This case concerned a motorist who failed to keep a proper lookout at a zebra crossing, resulting in a collision with a 65-year-old cyclist and causing a spinal fracture requiring surgical intervention.

2 On 28 April 2025, the accused pleaded guilty to a single charge under s.65(1)(b) punishable under s.65(3)(a) read with s.65(6)(d) of Road Traffic Act 1961 (“RTA”) for driving without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road causing grievous hurt.

3 The Defence sought a fine. I sentenced the accused to one week’s imprisonment instead and disqualified him from holding or obtaining all classes of driving licenses for five years, with effect from the date of release.

4 The accused, being dissatisfied with the sentence, has filed an appeal.

5 I now set out the reasons for my decision.

6 The following are drawn from the statement of facts, which the accused admitted to without qualification. ¹

7 On 15 April 2023, the accused was driving his motorcar along Outram Road and was turning left towards Eu Tong Seng Street using a slip road. As the accused approached the slip road with a zebra crossing, he slowed down his vehicle. Around the same time, the victim was cycling along the footpath next to Outram Road and turned right to cross the road using the zebra crossing. The victim did not stop before entering the zebra crossing. The accused, who entered the slip road without stopping before the zebra crossing and failed to keep a proper lookout, collided with the victim, who was cycling across the crossing.

8 The victim fell off his bicycle, landed on his back, and was unable to stand up after the fall. The accused stopped his car, called the ambulance for assistance, and the victim was conveyed to Singapore General Hospital (“SGH”) thereafter.

9 The victim first presented to the Department of Emergency Medicine at SGH and complained of neck and lower back pain. In a medical report dated 13 August 2023, ² Dr Arjun Thomson, an associate consultant at the said department, stated that the victim underwent several X-rays, was given analgesia, and admitted to the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery due to persistent pain. The initial diagnosis was “contusion back following a road traffic accident”.

10 In a further report dated 21 August 2023, ³ Dr Lim Yee Gem (“Dr Lim”), a consultant at the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery at SGH, stated that following further examination on 17 April 2023, he found the victim sustained a spinal fracture, specifically a “L1 chance fracture involving the bilateral pedicles and spinous process”. On 21 April 2023, the victim underwent surgery for “T10 to L4 posterior spinal instrumentation and stabilisation”, which is a surgical procedure that involves placing implants in the back of the spine to stabilise the spinal column. On 26 April 2023, the victim was transferred to Outram Community Hospital for post-operative rehabilitation and discharged on 13 May 2023. In total, the victim was given 72 days of hospitalisation leave from 15 April 2023 to 25 June 2023. ⁴

11 Dr Lim opined that the victim’s spinal fracture injury was consistent with a road traffic accident and that the victim should not suffer any permanent injuries following the accident.

12 Video footage capturing the accident was available and obtained from the accused’s in-car camera ⁵ and a nearby traffic camera. ⁶ At the time of the accident, the weather was clear, the road surface was dry, and the traffic volume was light. ⁷ There were no mechanical issues with the accused’s car at the material time.

13 The accused’s car suffered a crack to the front left portion ⁸ , whereas the victim’s bicycle sustained no damage. ⁹

14 The prescribed penalty for an offence under s.65(3)(a) of the RTA is a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or to both.

15 Under s.65(6)(d) of the RTA, unless the court for special reasons, thinks fit not to order or to order otherwise, the court must order that the person be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for at least five years.

16 While the accused did not have any previous convictions, he had a history of compounded traffic offences, namely:

17 The Prosecution submitted for a custodial sentence of one to two months’ imprisonment and five years’ disqualification. In support of this position, the Prosecution highlighted the following: ¹⁰

(a) First, applying the sentencing framework set out in Chen Song v Public Prosecutor and ors [2024] SGHC 129 (“Chen Song”) for offences punishable under section 65(3)(a) of the RTA, the Prosecution submitted that the present case fell within Band 1 of the framework as it assessed the offence to involve lesser harm and a lower culpability. ¹¹

(b) Second, the victim’s act of crossing the zebra crossing without first stopping cannot be regarded as having any direct bearing on the culpability of the accused (Guay Seng Tiong Nickson v Public Prosecutor [2016] 3 SLR 1079 (“Nickson Guay”).

(c) Third, the sentence sought is in line with precedent. ¹²

(d) Fourth, given the accused’s plea of guilt within Stage 1 of the Sentencing Advisory Panel’s Guidelines on Reduction in Sentence for Guilty Pleas (“SAP Guidelines”), the Prosecution accepted that a 30% reduction was appropriate in this case.

18 The Defence submitted for a high fine and period of disqualification at the discretion of the Court. In support of its position, the Defence made the following arguments: ¹³

(a) First, the Defence agreed with the Prosecution that the present case fell within Band 1 of the Chen Song sentencing framework involving lesser harm and lower culpability.

(b) Second, that the custodial threshold was not crossed in the present case, and a high fine was appropriate due to the following:

(i) The accused was genuinely remorseful; ¹⁴

(ii) The accused had no prior antecedents and had a low risk of re-offending. ¹⁵

(iii) The victim had contributed to the accident. ¹⁶

(iv) In line with the objectives of The Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill passed on 7 January 2025, the Court should give the accused a lighter sentence on account that the victim had violated the Road Traffic (Pedestrian Crossing) Rules;

(v) The accused should similarly receive a fine as in the precedent cases of PP v Ian Tai Zhi Jian and Erh Zhi Huang, Alvan (MA 9024/2022). ¹⁷

19 In assessing the appropriate sentence in this case, I applied the Chen Song sentencing framework.

20 It was undisputed that the Chen Song sentencing framework for offences under s.65(3)(a) of the RTA was applicable in the present case. The four-step framework is as follows: ¹⁸

(a) First, the court is to identify the number of offence-specific factors under the broad categories of “harm” and “culpability”. ¹⁹

(b) Second, based on the number of offence-specific factors present, the court is to determine whether the harm caused is “lesser harm” or “greater harm” and whether the culpability of the offender is “lower culpability” or “higher culpability” and thereafter arrive at a sentencing band. “Lesser harm” and “lower culpability” refer to situations where there are 0-1 harm or culpability factors, respectively. “Greater harm” or “higher culpability” is where there are two or more harm or culpability factors respectively.

(c) Third, after determining the indicative sentencing band, the court should identify an indicative starting point sentence within that range, considering: (a) all the primary harm factors and the culpability factors identified; and (b) the secondary harm factors.

(d) Fourth, the court is to adjust the starting point to take into account the usual gamut of offender-specific aggravating and mitigating factors.

21 Parties agreed that the present case fell within Band 1 of the Chen Song sentencing framework with a sentencing range of a fine and/or up to 6 months’ imprisonment. Where parties departed was whether the custodial threshold was crossed.

22 In my view, two of the three offence-specific primary harm factors had been engaged on the facts of this case, namely:

(a) Nature and location of the injury - the victim suffered a spinal fracture, which required surgical intervention. This was by no means a minor injury as a fracture to a vulnerable part of the body constituted “grievous hurt” as defined in section 320 of the Penal Code 1871. Injuries classified as grievous hurt are by their nature serious, ²⁰ and

(b) Impact of injury – the victim underwent surgery, was hospitalised for six days thereafter, and put on post-operative rehabilitation in a community hospital for 18 days before he was discharged. In total, he was given 72 days of hospitalisation leave. It was clear that the victim’s quality of life was impacted for a significant period, during which he was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. However, there was no indication of any more lasting or permanent injury. Nevertheless, the impact of the injury caused by the accident was certainly not trivial.

23 There were no significant secondary harm factors that were engaged in this case, given the minor property damage caused to the accused’s car. There was also no indication that other road users apart from the victim were put at risk by the accused’s offence.

24 I was mindful of the High Court’s comment at [127] of Chen Song that even where two or more primary harm factors apply, but if presented only to a limited degree, then the court may nevertheless consider that “lesser harm” had been caused based on a holistic assessment of the harm caused. Taken together, in my view, this case falls within the higher end of “lesser harm”.

25 On the issue of culpability, I found that one offence-specific culpability factor was engaged, namely the flouting of traffic rules and regulations, as the accused failed to yield to other road users and collided with the victim at a zebra crossing.

26 Rule 6 of the Road Traffic (Pedestrian Crossing) Rules states:

27 The Highway Code states:

28 There was no indication of any dangerous driving behaviour or a high degree of carelessness. In considering the culpability factor of “high degree of carelessness”, the High Court in Chen Song held that there ought to be a prolonged or sustained period of inattention, as opposed to a momentary lapse of attention, or whether the offender had been deliberately cavalier about mitigable risks. I accepted, in this case, where the accused failed to keep a proper lookout for the victim, that it was simply a manifestation of the basic elements of the careless driving offence. Without more, the accused could not be said to have exhibited a higher degree of carelessness (see Chen Song at [132]).

29 I therefore agreed with the parties that the present case involved “lower culpability”. However, I did not think that it was at the lowest end of “lower culpability”, given the highlighted culpability factor above that was engaged.

30 Based on my assessment that the present case fell within the higher end of “lesser harm” and the middle end of “lower culpability”, I agreed with the parties that the present case fell within Band 1 of the Chen Song sentencing framework. Nevertheless, even at the lower end of harm and culpability, where multiple factors are engaged, the custodial threshold may be crossed. This reflects the Court’s commitment to protect road users and deter careless driving.

31 At [137] of Chen Song, the High Court held that the custodial threshold would typically be crossed when there are two or more offence-specific harm and/or culpability factors present. Further, for Band 1 cases, fines would ordinarily be reserved for cases where zero to one offence-specific harm and/or culpability factors are present.

32 In the present case, I believe there were two harm factors and one culpability factor engaged. Furthermore, the facts did not fall within the lowest end of lesser harm or lower culpability, leading me to conclude that the custodial threshold had been crossed. A custodial sentence was necessary as the victim suffered a serious spinal fracture requiring surgical intervention, and the incident occurred at a zebra crossing where cyclists and pedestrians enjoy legal precedence. The custodial sentencing range within Band 1 goes up to 6 months’ imprisonment.

33  Nevertheless, I note that the victim did not suffer permanent injuries, the accused had slowed down when approaching the zebra crossing, and the accident resulted from a manifestation of the basic elements of careless driving. These considerations, in my view, warrant a lower sentence than the custodial sentencing range that the Prosecution was seeking at 2-3 months’ imprisonment on a claim trial basis. The appropriate indicative starting point, in my view, was 10 days’ imprisonment.

34 For completeness, I address the Defence’s argument that the accused should be given a fine because the victim had contributed to the accident by himself violating the Road Traffic (Pedestrian Crossing) Rules when he did not stop to look for oncoming traffic before using the crossing. ²¹ I was unpersuaded by this argument and rejected it for the following reasons:

(a) First, the victim’s conduct in this case, whether negligent or otherwise, should not affect the sentence to be imposed on the accused, as it has no bearing on the culpability of the accused (Nickson Guay at [70]). As seen from the video footage, the accused had slowed down while approaching the slip road, and the victim was visible, but the accused collided with the victim anyway. It was not argued in this case that the accused had seen the victim at the zebra crossing but was unable to stop in time before colliding with him; instead, it was a case where the accused failed to keep a proper lookout for the victim at the zebra crossing and collided with him. Therefore, the victim cyclist who had precedence over vehicular traffic at the zebra crossing did not affect the accused’s culpability in failing to keep a proper lookout.

(b) Second, the accused collided into the victim at a zebra crossing where it was not unforeseeable that there might be pedestrians or other road users using the crossing. Extra care should have been taken before proceeding across the zebra crossing, regardless of whether the victim had stopped to check for oncoming traffic. As stated in the Highway Code, ²² drivers when approaching a pedestrian crossing should always be ready to slow down or stop so as to give way to other road users.

35 I therefore rejected the Defence’s argument of any significant contributory negligence by the victim being a mitigating factor in this case, such that a fine would have been appropriate.

36 For the avoidance of doubt, I found the Defence argument that the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill should have any bearing on the appropriate sentence of this present offence committed in April 2023, to be without merit.

37 The accused had multiple traffic-related compounded offences, including a careless driving offence in 2019 and failing to conform to a red light signal in 2024. ²³

38 In Teo Seng Tiong v Public Prosecutor [2021] 2 SLR 642 (“Teo Seng Tiong”), the High Court held that a Court may take into account offences compounded under the RTA in sentencing an accused for another offence under the RTA. However, where the compounded offences are aged or dissimilar, it may be appropriate to accord less weight to them. ²⁴ The careless driving offence was relevant, and the failure to conform to a red light signal offence was recent.

39 Nevertheless, I balanced the aggravating weight of the accused’s driving record against his conduct and cooperation with the authorities after the accident, in which he had stopped his car to assist in conveying the victim to the hospital. Overall, I made no further adjustment to the indicative starting sentence of 10 days’ imprisonment at this stage.

40 I accepted that the accused pleaded guilty early during Stage 1 of the SAP Guidelines. I therefore applied the full sentencing discount of 30% to 10 days’ imprisonment and imposed a sentence of 1 week’s imprisonment.

41 Unless there are special reasons, the mandatory minimum disqualification period applicable for an offence under s.65(3) of the RTA is five years’ disqualification. In Lee Shin Nan v PP [2023] SGHC 354 at [79], it was held that special reasons would generally only be found if the court is satisfied that the offender drove in circumstances that suggest:

(a) It was necessary to do so to avoid other likely and serious harm or danger; and

(b) There was no reasonable alternative way to achieve this end. ²⁵

42 It was undisputed, and I did not think that there were any special reasons to impose a disqualification period below the mandatory minimum period of 5 years in this case. I so sentenced the accused.

43 The Defence sought to rely on the unreported case of PP v Ian Tai Zhi Jian (“Ian Tai”) in seeking a fine. In Ian Tai, the offender pleaded guilty to one charge of careless driving under s.65(3)(a) r/w s.65(6)(d) of the RTA and was sentenced to a fine of $4800 (in default 14 days imprisonment) and 5 years’ disqualification. The offender had failed to conform to a red-light signal while travelling straight along Jurong Townhall Road and collided with the victim, who was cycling across the pedestrian crossing. Investigations revealed that the victim cycled across the pedestrian crossing when the pedestrian crossing signal light was showing a red man. The victim suffered a spinal fracture requiring surgery and was given 68 days of hospitalisation leave. There was no indication of permanent injury. Both the Prosecution and the Defence had agreed that a sentence of a fine was appropriate in that case.

44 I found the Defence’s reliance on the outcome of Ian Tai to be of limited assistance to this Court, given that it was an unreported decision. It is trite that unreported decisions that are not fully reasoned have limited precedential value. ²⁶ As stated in PP v Lin Pengli Barrie [2025] SGHC 133 at [29], the High Court held that unreported cases are “inherently deficient as precedents because there is no insight into the judge’s weighing of facts and evidence, and their reasoning for the sentences imposed” even if the charge sheets, sentencing submissions and statement of facts of these unreported cases may be available. Notwithstanding some factual similarity, in my view, there was a crucial difference distinguishing Ian Tai and the present case – the victim in Ian Tai had cycled across the pedestrian crossing when the red man was showing. In contrast, the victim in the present case had precedence over vehicular traffic at a zebra crossing. I therefore found the Defence’s reliance on Ian Tai as an unreported precedent to be of limited assistance, especially considering the dissimilar factual matrix before me in the present case. In any case, the case of Ian Tai was not binding on this court.

45 I next turn to the Defence’s reliance on Erh Zhi Huang, Alvan’s (“Erh”) case, which went before the High Court in Chen Song as HC/MA 9204/2022. Erh was convicted on one charge of careless driving under s.65(3)(a) r/w s.65(6)(d) of the RTA. His sentence was reduced on appeal from 10 weeks’ imprisonment to a $4,000 fine and a five-year disqualification. In Erh, the offender made an abrupt lane change without keeping a proper lookout when the car in front of him stopped due to heavy traffic. This led to the offender’s car colliding with the victim, who was travelling on his motorcycle. The victim suffered a traumatic amputation of the right little finger, a right-sided clavicle fracture, and was given 58 days of hospitalisation leave. At the outset, it should be noted that Erh’s sentence on appeal was based on the Sue Chang v PP [2022] SGHC 176 (“Sue Chang”) sentencing framework, as that was the applicable sentencing framework at the time of sentence ²⁷ .

46 In contrast, the applicable sentencing framework in the present case was the Chen Song sentencing framework. Notwithstanding the different applicable sentencing frameworks, I was of the view that the present case was more serious than Erh, considering the spinal fracture involved, the higher number of days of hospitalisation leave, and the additional culpability factor of hitting the victim at a zebra crossing. These factors warranted a higher sentence than in Erh.

47 The Prosecution highlighted the case of Adri Satryawan Pratama v PP [2024] SGHC 258 (“Adri”), in which the sentence of six weeks’ imprisonment for an offender who pleaded guilty to one charge of careless driving under s.65(3)(a) r/w s.65(6)(d) of the RTA was upheld on appeal. The Prosecution argued that a similar sentence be meted out in the present case. ²⁸ As highlighted by the Prosecution, ²⁹ in Adri, the offender had failed to keep a lookout for the victim, who was standing behind her car, which had broken down at a slip road leading to the CTE. Consequently, his lorry collided with the victim and her vehicle. The victim sustained multiple injuries, including a right femur fracture, left tibia and fibula fracture, left radial and ulnar fracture, left middle finger fracture, right metacarpal fracture, and multiple rib and vertebral fractures. She underwent two surgeries. She was given a total of 139 days’ hospitalisation and medical leave, and was admitted to the hospital for 30 days. The offender also faced a TIC charge for causing hurt to the victim’s passengers.

48 I disagreed with the Prosecution that the present case should attract a similar sentence to Adri for the following reasons:

(a) First, the extent of the injuries was more serious in Adri than in the present case. The High Court affirmed the assessment of harm in Adri within the higher end of the moderate range, whereas, as I have explained above, I was of the view that the level of harm in the present case was at the higher end of lesser harm.

(b) Second, the offender in Adri faced a TIC charge for causing hurt to the victim’s passengers, which did not feature in the present case.

(c) Third, both the offender in Adri and the present case have been assessed to have low culpability.

49 Given the rather significant difference in the extent of injuries suffered by the victims in Adri and the present case, and the absence of a TIC charge in the present case, I was of the view that the sentence in the present case should be considerably lower than in Adri. However, it is clear that the custodial threshold was crossed in both cases.

50 In my view, the present case was less severe than Adri but more serious than Erh. These comparisons place the present case appropriately at the lower end of custodial sentencing. With that in mind, a one-week custodial sentence was proportionate and in line with precedent.

51 Motorists must understand that failing to exercise due care at pedestrian crossings, even momentarily, will attract custodial sentences where serious harm results. This is essential to safeguard road users and protect the public. A custodial sentence was the appropriate sentence in this case. This accounts for the multiple offence-specific harm and culpability factors engaged, and reflects the need for deterrence and accountability. A fine would have undermined these objectives as it would not have adequately addressed the seriousness of the offence and the severity of the harm caused.

52 All considered, the sentence of one week’s imprisonment and five years’ disqualification was, in my view, proportionate, just, and consistent with precedent.