[2026] SGDC 304

Please delete where applicable –

1. This judgment does not need redaction.

2. Redaction has not been done.

DISTRICT JUDGE

SALINA ISHAK

18 September 2026

In the state courts of the republic of singapore

[2026] SGDC 304

District Arrest Case No 905532 of 2025

Magistrate’s Appeal No 9206-2026-01

	Public Prosecutor

Against

	Lim Teng How (Lin Shenghao)

grounds of decision

[Criminal Procedure and Sentencing] — [Statutory offences] — [Road Traffic Act 1961] — [Driving without without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road] — [Grievous hurt caused] — [Harm factors in Chen Song engaged] — [51% total permanent disability]

This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports.

Public Prosecutor
v
Lim Teng How (Lin Shenghao)

[2026] SGDC 304

District Arrest Case No 905532 of 2025
Magistrate’s Appeal No 9206-2026-01

District Judge Salina Ishak

18 & 21 August 2026 and 3 September 2026

18 September 2026

District Judge Salina Ishak:

Introduction

1 The present accident occurred when a motorcar executed a U-turn and entered the travel path of a motorcycle causing a head-to-side collision between the two vehicles.

2 The accused, Mr Lim Teng How (Lin Shenghao), a 50-year-old male Singapore citizen pleaded guilty to a charge under s 65(1)(b) punishable under s 65(3)(a) read with s 65(6)(d) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (“RTA”):

You, are charged that you, on 4 February 2023 at or about 5.36pm, along Pasir Panjang Road, Singapore, did drive a motorcar bearing vehicle registration number SLR8089E on a road without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, to wit, by failing to keep a proper lookout for other road users whilst executing an authorised U-turn, resulting in a head-to side collision with a motorcycle bearing vehicle registration number FBQ1119Y, which was travelling from your left to your right, and grievous hurt was caused to one Jaiprakash s/o Aruvinasan in the form of a tibia plateau fracture and right ankle closed bimalleolar fracture by your driving, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 65(1)(b) and punishable under section 65(3)(a) read with section 65(6)(d) of the Road Traffic Act 1961.

Background

3 The accused was first charged in Court 7B on 2 April 2025. Initially, he claimed trial to the charge after multiple adjournments and pre-trial conferences. The matter was fixed for four days of trial from 18 August 2026. On 15 August 2026, the Defence indicated the accused’s intention to plead guilty. The accused pleaded guilty on 18 August 2026 and admitted to the Statement of Facts and the video footage without any qualification. The matter was adjourned to 21 August 2026 for the Defence to submit the accused’s plea in mitigation .

4 On 21 August 2026, after carefully considering the address on sentence as well as the plea in mitigation, I sentenced the accused to ten months’ imprisonment and disqualified him from holding or obtaining all classes of driving licences for a period of five years with effect from the date of release. The accused was granted a deferment of the commencement of his sentence until 4 September 2026.

5 Nevertheless, the accused, being dissatisfied with my decision filed a Notice of Appeal against his sentence on 31 August 2026. He is on bail pending the hearing of his appeal.

6 I now set out the grounds of my decision in full.

Salient Facts

7 The accused was the driver of the motorcar bearing vehicle registration number SLR8089E (the “motorcar”) at the material time of the incident. He was also employed as a private-hire driver.

Facts relating to the charge (DAC-905532-2025)

8 The victim is Jaiprakash s/o Aruvinasan, a 41-year-old male Singaporean. He was the rider of the motorcycle bearing vehicle registration number FBQ1119Y (the “motorcycle”) at the material time of the incident.

9 The accused drove the motorcar on 4 February 2023 at or about 5.36pm along Pasir Panjang Road, Singapore. At this time, whilst driving the motorcar, the accused attempted to execute an authorised U-turn. The accused did not bring the motorcar to a halt before completing the U-turn and failed to keep a proper lookout for other road users whilst executing an authorised U-turn.

10 Whilst the accused was executing the U-turn with the motorcar, the victim was riding the motorcycle along Pasir Panjang Road. The accused’s attempt to execute the U-turn resulted in the motorcar being driven directly into the motorcycle’s path of travel. As a result, the motorcycle collided with the motorcar in a head-to-side collision, whilst the accused was in the midst of executing the U-turn. In the immediate lead-up to the collision, the motorcycle was travelling from the accused’s left to his right.

11 As a result of the collision, the motorcycle’s front portion was dented and cracked, and its left portion was dented and cracked. As a result of the collision, the motorcar’s front portion was damaged and rendered non-functional. The motorcar’s left front portion was also damaged.

12 At the time of the accident, the traffic flow was moderate, the road surface was wet, and it was raining.

13 Due to the impact of the collision between the motorcycle and motorcar, the victim was flung into the air and landed on the road, sustaining various injuries. The victim was then conveyed from the incident location to National University Hospital (“NUH”) via ambulance.

14 The victim was examined at NUH by Dr Wan Zi Hui, a Medical Officer at the Emergency Department of NUH on 4 February 2023 at 6.26pm. He was diagnosed with a right knee open dislocation with multi-ligamentous knee injury and tibia plateau fracture complicated by common peroneal nerve injury, as well as a right ankle closed bimalleolar fracture. The victim was warded at NUH from 4 to 6 February 2023. A medical report was prepared by Dr Wan dated 12 May 2023 stating these findings.

15 During the victim’s inpatient stay at NUH from 4 to 6 February 2023, the victim was treated by a multi-disciplinary team of doctors, involving trauma surgeons, orthopaedic surgeons, and anaesthetists. The victim was treated for a right knee open dislocation with multi-ligamentous injury and a right ankle fracture. He underwent a right knee wound debridement, external fixator and negative pressure dressing by an orthopaedic surgery team. The victim’s multiple abrasions over his hand, knee and calves were managed conservatively. A medical report was prepared by Dr Pravin Lingam, a Consultant at the Trauma Division, Department of General Surgery of NUH, dated 16 May 2023, stating these findings.

16 Following the victim’s inpatient stay at NUH from 4 to 6 February 2023, the victim was transferred to Farrer Park Hospital on 7 February 2023. During his inpatient stay at Farrer Park Hospital, the victim then underwent multiple surgeries to salvage his severely injured right lower limb and prevent infection. He was eventually discharged from Farrer Park Hospital on 28 March 2023. In total, between 4 February 2023 and 28 March 2023, the victim had been warded at NUH and Farrer Park Hospital for 52 days.

17 Subsequently, on 19 September 2024, the victim’s condition was reviewed by Dr Henry Chan Ying Ho, a Senior Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon at HC Orthopaedic Surgery Pte Ltd (Novena). Dr Chan listed the following significant physical findings, after conducting his review of the victim:

(a) Right lower limb shortening by 1cm;

(b) Right knee fixed flexion deformity and severe stiffness;

(d) Right ankle stiffness.

18 Dr Chan further assessed the victim to have a combined total of 51% of total permanent disability, relating to:

(a) Leg length discrepancy of 1cm (4%);

(b) Restriction in the range of motion of the right knee with flexion contracture of 10 degrees (2%) and arc of active flexion of 20 degrees (29%);

(d) Common peroneal nerve with combined sensory and motor dysfunction (17%).

A medical report was prepared by Dr Chan dated 20 September 2024 stating these findings.

19 In total, the victim was granted 704 days of hospitalisation leave, comprising the following periods in the victim’s medical certificates:

(a) 4 February 2023 to 3 October 2023;

(b) 17 November 2023 to 12 December 2023;

(d) 7 July 2024 to 31 March 2025.

20 By virtue of the foregoing, the accused did drive the motorcar on a road without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, by failing to keep a proper lookout for other road users whilst executing an authorised U-turn, resulting in a head-to-side collision with the motorcycle, which was travelling from his left to his right. Grievous hurt was caused to the victim in the form of a tibia plateau fracture and right ankle closed bimalleolar fracture by the accused’s driving. The accused has thereby committed an offence under section 65(1)(b) and punishable under s 65(3)(a) read with s 65(6)(d) of the RTA.

Remand and custody information

21 The accused was arrested by the police on 25 March 2025 and was released on agency bail later that same day. He has remained on agency bail and has not spent any time in remand to date.

Antecedents

22 The accused has multiple traffic antecedents from 2001 to 2022 as reflected in his 10-page Traffic Police Conviction History. These cover a wide range of driving-related offences, including parking offences, failing to provide his driver's particulars, using a mobile phone while driving, speeding, and running a red light.

23 His more recent antecedents were for:

(a) Failing to conform to red light signal on 14 February 2019 and 1 April 2022 which were compounded for $200 and $400 respectively and

(b) For speeding on 7 April 2019 and 23 February 2022 which were both compounded for $200 each.

Prescribed Punishment

24 The offence of driving without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road and causing grievous hurt is punishable with a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both. The offender also faces a mandatory disqualification period of at least 5 years unless there are special reasons.

Prosecution’s Submissions on Sentence

25 The Prosecution sought a sentence of between 9 and 11 months’ imprisonment and 5 years’ disqualification with effect from release.

Applicable Sentencing Framework

26 The Prosecution relied on the sentencing framework set by the General Division of the High Court in Chen Song v Public Prosecutor and other appeals [2025] 3 SLR 509 (“Chen Song”) which adopted a modified “sentencing bands” approach as follows at [134].

(a) First, identify the number of offence-specific harm and culpability factors.

(b) Second, based on the number of offence-specific factors present, determine the degree of harm caused and the offender’s culpability, and thereafter arrive at the applicable sentencing band.

(c) Third, identify an indicative starting point sentence within the indicative sentencing band that the offence falls within, taking into account: (i) all the primary harm and culpability factors identified; and (ii) the secondary harm factors.

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

Application of the framework

Harm Factors

27 At the first step, the Prosecution asserts the following offence-specific primary harm factors:

a. Nature and location of the injuries

28 The victim sustained multiple fractures and injuries over various parts of his body, including a right knee open dislocation with multi-ligamentous knee injury, tibia plateau fracture complicated by common peroneal nerve injury, as well as a right ankle closed bimalleolar fracture.

b. Degree of permanence

29 Following the accident, the victim was found to have a combined total of 51% of total permanent disability.

c. Impact of injury

30 The victim was granted hospitalisation leave for a significant period of 704 days. The victim also had to undergo multiple surgeries to salvage his severely injured right lower limb and prevent infection. The victim’s conditions of severe stiffness on his right knee, and right ankle stiffness, are likely to significantly impair his mobility for the rest of his life.

Culpability factors

31 For the culpability factors, the Prosecution asserts that the offence involved the flouting of Rule 13(2) of the Road 20 Traffic Rules. Whilst executing his U-turn, the accused failed to give way to the victim’s motorcycle, an oncoming vehicle, and did not wait for a safe opportunity to complete his U-turn, thus leading to the collision between both vehicles.

32 The Prosecution further asserts that the High Court in Chen Song found generally that if there are 0-1 primary harm or culpability factors, there will be “lesser harm” and “lower culpability” respectively (at [123]). Conversely, if there are 2 or more harm or culpability factors, there will be “greater harm” and “higher culpability” respectively.

Applicable sentencing band

33 At the second step, the Prosecution asserts that as the present case involves three harm factors and one culpability factor, this was a case of greater harm and lower culpability that fell within the upper end of Band 2. The indicative sentencing range for greater harm and lower culpability is 6 months to 1 year’s imprisonment.

Indicative starting point sentence

34 At the third step, the Prosecution asserts that the appropriate indicative starting point sentence should be between 8 and 10 months’ imprisonment. This takes into account the secondary harm caused by the accused’s offence in the form of property damage. As a result of the collision, the victim’s motorcycle’s front portion was dented and cracked, and its left portion was dented and cracked.

Adjustments based on offender-specific factors

35 At the fourth step, the Prosecution asserts that the accused has multiple compounded traffic offences. These cover a wide range of driving-related offences, including parking offences, failing to provide his driver’s particulars, using a mobile phone while driving, speeding, and running a red light. In light of this driving-related offending history, the Prosecution further asserts that a 2-month uplift of the indicative sentence to between 10 and 12 months’ imprisonment was warranted.

Applicable sentencing discount

36 The Prosecution asserts that as the accused indicated his plea of guilty shortly before trial, within Stage 3 of the Sentencing Advisory Panel’s (SAP) Guidelines for Reduction in Sentences for Guilty Pleas a maximum reduction of 10% may be applied to the accused’s sentence of imprisonment.

The appropriate sentence

37 Applying the reduction based on the SAP Guidelines, the Prosecution sought a sentence of between 9 and 11 months’ imprisonment. The Prosecution also sought the minimum disqualification period of 5 years for all classes with effect from the date of the accused’s release from prison.

Plea in Mitigation

38 In the written plea in mitigation , the Defence provided the accused’s personal background as well as the circumstances leading to the present charge.

Events in connection with the charge

39 The Defence asserts that on 4 February 2023, the accused was driving along Pasir Panjang Road towards the authorised U-turn on the right side of the 3-lane carriage road before Bus Stop No. 15211 (Opp Pasir View Park).

A Google Maps image showing the approach towards the said U-turn.

40 He slowed down the car as he approached and entered the filter lane for the authorised U-turn and came to a near complete stop at the stop line of the said U-turn.

A close-up Google Maps image of the filter lane and authorised U-turn (as at March 2025).

41 The Defence further asserts whilst inching forward and towards the stop line at the authorised U-turn, the accused kept a lookout for on-coming traffic along Pasir Panjang Road towards Keppel Road. The authorised U-turn straddles a centre island divider which is approximately 10 metres wide. There were thick bushes which are about waist high along the cement border of the centre island dividers. The bushes are shown in the screenshot from the car’s in-car camera footage and a photograph taken at the scene on the day of the accident.

42 The Defence asserts that the accused did not observe any oncoming traffic and proceeded to cross the stop line (without coming to a complete stop) and complete the U-turn into Pasir Panjang Road towards Keppel Road. As he was completing the U-turn, he noticed the motorcycle closing in on the car at a high speed from the side mirror. There was nothing he could do to avoid an accident because the motorcycle was approaching the car at high speed from the side and crashed into the car a head-to-side collision. The motorcyclist was flung into the air and landed on the road. The accused immediately stopped his vehicle and moved to the side of the Pasir Panjang Road near lamp post 93/6. He came out of the car and rendered immediate assistance to the injured motorcyclist.

Applicable sentencing framework

43 The Defence agrees that the applicable sentencing framework for careless driving offences punishable under sections 65(3)(a) and 65(4)(a) of the RTA is that set by the High Court in Chen Song.

44 The Defence sought a sentence of six to eight months imprisonment and relied on the following mitigating factors.

Applicable sentencing band

45 The Defence asserts that while it was undisputed that the severity of harm in the present case fell into the “greater harm” category, the accused’s culpability was lower (ie Band 2). The accused did not exhibit any form of dangerous driving behaviours mentioned in the Chen Song framework for culpability factors. He did not exhibit a high degree of carelessness.

46 The Defence further asserts that the accused had slowed down and came to a near complete stop at the stop line before crossing the stop line. He had kept a lookout but had a momentary lapse of attention. He was not cavalier about certain mitigable risk. The only offence-specific culpability factor was that the accused had flouted traffic rules and regulations by failing to stop at a stop-line in an authorised U-turn. The accused accepted that he should have stopped at the stop line and kept a proper lookout.

Indicative starting point sentence

47 The Defence asserts that the liability for the accident in the civil suit was apportioned at 75:25 in favour of the motorcyclist. This was likely because the victim was travelling at a high speed. There was some degree of fault attributable to the motorcyclist for the accident. Whilst this was no excuse for the accused’s actions, it should be regarded as a factor which lowered his culpability. As such, the indicative starting point sentence should be in the lower end of Band 2 of the Chen Song sentencing bands.

Adjustments based on offender-specific factors

48 The Defence further asserts that the accused was cooperative with the Traffic Police throughout their investigations. He was genuinely remorseful and contrite and wished to extend his apologies to the motorcyclist. While the accused has multiple compounded traffic offences, the bulk of these traffic offences relate to parking and owner’s failure to provide driver’s particulars offences which are minor traffic offences with no demerit points. His offence of using a mobile telephone while driving in March 2003 and April 2008 were dated and his last conviction for traffic offences was in 2022.

49 The Defence asserts that there should be no uplift of the indicative sentence based on these offences because they do not pertain to the same offending act as that arising in the present case. Less weight should be accorded to them or in the alternative, the uplift should be minimal and between two (2) weeks to one (1) month.

The appropriate sentence

50 The Defence urged the court to show leniency and to impose an imprisonment term of not more than six (6) to eight (8) months and the minimum disqualification period of 5 years for the charge.

Prosecution’s Reply

51 In response to the mitigation plea, the Prosecution disagrees with the Defence’s characterisation of the events leading up to the accident as it was not borne out by the objective video evidence. According to the Defence, the accused person had slowed down, the vehicle was not brought to a full stop, the accused had kept a lookout but there was a momentary lapse of attention.

52 The Prosecution asserts that from the footage, as the accused attempting to execute the authorised U-turn, he had not stopped the vehicle or even brought the vehicle to a near-complete halt before he executed the turn. In fact, he executed the turn in a smooth fashion. In that connection, the Prosecution disagrees with the Defence’s submission that the accused’s degree of culpability was lower.

53 The Prosecution disagrees with the Defence’s assertion that the liability of the accident in the civil suit DC/OC 1106/2025 was apportioned at 75/25 in favour of the motorcyclist as it was likely because the victim was traveling at a high speed. According to the Defence, there was some degree of fault attributable to the victim for the accident.

54 The Prosecution asserts that a consent judgment was entered for the civil claim in DC/OC 1106/2025 . The Court had not made the decision based on an adjudication of the merits of the claim. It was highlighted that the issues of causation, damages, interest, and costs was reserved to the registrar assessing the damages. It was further highlighted that the information of the speed of the motorcycle was not in the Statement of Facts because investigations had not been conclusive.

55 The Prosecution further asserts that the salient points which the court should consider at the foremost was:

(a) that the motorcycle had the right of way;

(b) the conditions of the road at the time, the weather and the surface of the road;

56 As the party who did not have right of way, it would have been the accused’s responsibility to take these road and weather conditions into account before he judged whether it was safe for him to perform a U-turn. If the road surface is wet, a vehicle’s braking distance is extended. The footage also showed that there were no bushes that obstructed his vision at the time.

REASONS FOR THE SENTENCE

Applicable sentencing framework

57 The applicable sentencing framework for the present charge under s 65(1)(b) and punishable under s 65(3)(a) of the RTA is the sentencing bands approach prescribed by the High Court in Chen Song v Public Prosecutor and other appeals.

Application of the framework

58 In applying this framework, the first step is for the court to identify the number of offence-specific harm and culpability factors.

Harm factors

Primary harm

59 In respect of the primary harm factors, I agree with the Prosecution that all three harm factors in Chen Song were engaged as set out below.

a. Nature and location of the injuries

60 The accused’s motorcar collided into the victim’s motorcycle. Motorcyclists are particularly vulnerable on the road as there are no physical protection of the enclosed metal frame of a vehicle nor airbags or seatbelts to absorb the impact of a collision. The victim fell within this category of vulnerability. The impact from the collision caused the victim to be flung into the air and he landed some distance away at the bus bay. This can be seen in the screen shots extracted from the footage below:

61 He sustained multiple fractures and injuries over various parts of his body, including a right knee open dislocation with multi-ligamentous knee injury, tibia plateau fracture complicated by common peroneal nerve injury, as well as a right ankle closed bimalleolar fracture.

b. Degree of permanence

62 The victim was found to have a combined total of 51% of total permanent disability. In Dr Henry Chan’s 20 September 2024 medical report , he opined that although the victim’s right lower limb was successful salvaged, he is still left with significant permanent disability.

63 Dr Chan assessed the victim to have a combined total of 51% of total permanent disability, relating to:

(a) Leg length discrepancy of 1cm (4%);

(b) Restriction in the range of motion of the right knee with flexion contracture of 10 degrees (2%) and arc of active flexion of 20 degrees (29%);

(d) Common peroneal nerve with combined sensory and motor dysfunction (17%).

64 I considered the fact that after a medical review, the victim was found to have:

i. Right lower limb shortening by 1cm;

ii. Right knee fixed flexion deformity and severe stiffness;

iii. Right lower limb foot drop with partial recovery; and

iv. Right ankle stiffness.

c. Impact

65 I further considered that the impact of injury on the victim's quality of life was not insignificant. The victim was hospitalised for 52 days and given a lengthy 704 days of hospitalisation leave. The victim also underwent multiple surgeries to salvage his severely injured right lower limb and prevent infection.

66 During his medical review on 19 September 2024, the victim was walking with a short limb and stiff knee gait. The doctor opined that he would need to wear a special foot-drop shoe for his right partial foot drop. He was able to walk independently (without walking aids) for short distance but would require a walking stick/personal mobility device for longer distance. The victim's conditions of severe stiffness on his right knee, and right ankle stiffness are likely to significantly impair his mobility for the rest of his life.

67 Apart from these primary harm factors, I also considered the secondary harm in the present case.

Secondary harm

68 At [129] of Chen Song, it was held that potential harm refers to harm that was likely to have been caused to other road users, but which ultimately did not eventuate. Secondary harm includes factors such as potential harm and property damage. It was highlighted that in Wu Zhi Yong v Public Prosecutor [2022] 4 SLR 587 (“Wu Zhi Yong”), the High Court endorsed the pronouncement in Neo Chuan Seng v Public Prosecutor [2020] 5 SLR 410 at [22] (“Neo Chuan Seng”) that the level of potential harm may be assessed against facts such as the condition of the road, the volume of traffic or number of pedestrians actually on or which might be reasonably be expected to be on the road at the relevant time, the speed and manner of driving, visibility at the relevant time, the type of vehicle, and any particular vulnerabilities (eg, a truck or car colliding into a motorcycle or pedestrian).

69 I considered the fact that at the time of the accident at 5:36pm, the traffic flow was moderate, the road surface was wet, and it was raining. As the evening traffic flow was moderate and the accused failed to keep a proper lookout when making the turn, he could have potentially collided into other vehicles that were travelling in the same direction as the victim. Hence, the risk of a collision with other oncoming vehicles was significant. Further, in respect of property damage, I also considered that the victim's motorcycle’s suffered dents and cracks in its front portion as well as its left portion.

70 I was mindful that at [126] of Chen Song, the High Court held that each harm factor would count as one offence-specific factor going towards harm. However, where a secondary factor presents itself in a significant manner, this should be considered in the determination of where the offence falls within the indicative sentencing band.

Culpability factor

Flouting of traffic rules and regulations

71 In terms of culpability, I agree with the Prosecution that the offence involved the flouting of traffic rules and regulations. Whilst executing his U-turn, I agree that the accused failed to give way to the victim's motorcycle, an oncoming vehicle with the right of way, and did not wait for a safe opportunity to complete his U-turn, thus leading to the collision between both vehicles. Rule 13(2) of the Road Traffic Rules provides that:

(2) A driver or rider of any vehicle making a U-turn under paragraph (1) shall -

(a) move as near as possible to the right-hand edge of the roadway;

(b) give way to any on-coming vehicle; and

72 I agree with the Prosecution that as the party who did not have right of way, it would have been the accused’s responsibility to take these road and weather conditions into account before he judged whether it was safe for him to perform a U-turn. If the road surface is wet, a vehicle’s braking distance is extended. This is a factor which a responsible motorist is expected to take. For the safety of road users, there should be strict compliance with traffic rules and regulations through observance of traffic signals and signs, adherence to speed limits and proper lane discipline.

73 Consequently, I disagree with the Defence's assertion that the accused kept a lookout for oncoming traffic along Pasir Panjang Road towards Keppel Road. From the footage, it did not appear as if the accused was inching forward and towards the stop line. I agree with the Prosecution that the footage showed that the accused executed the turn in a smooth fashion. Hence, I disagree with the Defence’s assertion that the accused had slowed down and came to a near complete stop at the stop line before crossing the stop line. In any event, the accused accepts that he failed to stop at a stop-line at an authorised U-turn. Had he done so and waited for a safe opportunity to complete the turn, he would have been able to avoid any oncoming vehicle which had the right of way.

74 The Defence highlighted that there were thick bushes which were about waist high along the cement border of the centre island dividers. From the screenshot and photograph tendered at Annex C of the mitigation plea, I did not think the accused's view was obstructed by these bushes. Hence, I agree with the Prosecution that the footage and the scene photograph tendered by the Defence show that there were no bushes that obstructed the accused’s vision of oncoming traffic at the material time.

75 The Defence asserts that there was some degree of fault attributable to the victim as the liability for the accident in the civil suit was apportioned at 75:25 in favour of the victim. It was suggested that this is likely to be because the victim was travelling at a high speed. As there was no objective evidence before me of this assertion, I did not place any weight on this unsupported assertion.

76 Furthermore, the fact that such a Consent Judgment on Liability was entered was not conclusive of some degree of fault attributable to the victim for the accident. As highlighted by the Prosecution, the issues of causation, damages, interest, and costs was reserved to the registrar assessing the damages in the civil suit. In any event, the information of the speed of the motorcycle was not in the Statement of Facts because investigations had not been conclusive. It is common for such personal injury motor accident claims for liability to be agreed upon to facilitate the resolution of the claim.

Applicable sentencing band

77 At the second step, based on the number of offence-specific factors present, the court is to determine the degree of harm caused and the offender’s culpability, and thereafter arrive at the applicable sentencing band. In Chen Song at [123], the High Court held that generally that if there are 0-1 primary harm or culpability factors, there will be “lesser harm” and “lower culpability” respectively. Conversely, if there are 2 or more harm or culpability factors, there will be “greater harm” and “higher culpability” respectively.

78 The sentencing bands for offences punishable under s 65(3)(a) RTA in Chen Song at [134(b)] is extracted below:

Band	Circumstances	Sentencing range
1	Lesser harm and lower culpability	Fine and/or up to 6 months’ imprisonment
2	Greater harm and lower culpability Or Lesser harm and higher culpability	6 months’ to 1 year’s imprisonment
3	Greater harm and higher culpability	1 to 2 years’ imprisonment

79 The foremost inquiry was for me to assess holistically whether the totality of the harm suffered by the victim is classified as “greater harm” or “lesser harm”. In doing so, I considered the intensity of each harm factor as set out at [59] to [70] above. On a holistic assessment of the harm factors in the present case, given that all three harm factors were applicable, I assessed it to fall within the greater harm category.

80 Next, I considered whether the offender’s culpability should holistically be classified as either “lower culpability” or “higher culpability”. As there is only 1 culpability factor as discussed above, I assessed it to fall under lower culpability.

81 As the present case involves three harm factors and one culpability factor, this was a case of greater harm and lower culpability. The applicable sentencing band is Band 2 where the sentencing range is 6 months to 1 year’s imprisonment.

Indicative starting point sentence

82 At the third step, the court is to identify an indicative starting point sentence within the indicative sentencing band that the offence falls within, considering all the primary harm and culpability factors as well as the secondary harm factors.

83 In the present case, I agree with the Prosecution that the indicative starting point sentence should be within at the upper end of Band 2 namely between 8 and 10 months’ imprisonment. This is in view of the intensity or severity of the harm, particularly the combined total of 51% of total permanent disability suffered by the victim. Hence, I did not accept the Defence's assertion that the case fell within the lower end of the Band 2 range in Chen Song as it would not adequately reflect the gravity of the harm caused.

Adjustments based on offender-specific factors

84 At the fourth step, I was to adjust the indicative starting point after considering the mitigating and aggravating factors present in this case.

85 In terms of the aggravating factors, I considered the accused’s multiple compounded traffic offences as reflected in the 10-pages of his Traffic Police Conviction History . These cover a wide range of driving-related offences, including parking offences, failing to provide his driver's particulars, using a mobile phone while driving, speeding, and running a red light.

86 I was mindful that the present offence occurred on 4 February 2023 and his more recent antecedents were for failing to conform to red light signal on 1 April 2022 and for speeding on 23 February 2022. These were by no means dated and as such I agree with the Prosecution an uplift in the starting sentence by 2 months to 10 to 12 months imprisonment is therefore necessary on account of his poor driving history. I disagree with the Defence that there should be no uplift or in the alternative that it be minimal as his antecedents do not pertain to the same offending act. In my view, his driving-related offending history is reflective of his disregard for traffic rules and regulations which warrants an uplift in the starting point sentence.

87 Nevertheless, I considered the following factors as mitigating:

(a) He came out of the car and rendered immediate assistance to the victim.

(b) He cooperative with the Traffic Police throughout their investigations.

(d) He was not speeding or driving in a dangerous manner at the material time.

88 Based on the above and the factual matrix of the charge before me, I was of the view on a claim trial basis the appropriate sentence should be adjusted to 11 ½ months' imprisonment.

Applicable sentencing discount

Stage of Guilty Plea

89 The accused indicated his intention to plead guilty shortly before trial within Stage 3 of the Sentencing Advisory Panel's Guidelines for Reduction in Sentences for Guilty Pleas. Based on the guidelines, the reduction in sentence to be considered is up to a maximum 10%. Having considered the factual matrix of the case, I applied the full 10% sentencing discount to arrive at a sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment.

90 In respect of the disqualification period, it was undisputed that the appropriate disqualification period should be 5 years as mandated by the law. As there were no special reasons before me warranting a departure from the minimum period of 5 years, such a disqualification period was just and appropriate in the circumstances.

Conclusion

91 All things considered, in respect of DAC-905532-2025, I imposed a sentence of 10 months imprisonment and disqualification order for a period of 5 years for all classes, with effect from the date of release.

Salina Ishak
District Judge

Ong Xin Jie (Attorney-General’s Chambers) for the Public Prosecutor.

Ranjit Singh (Francis Khoo & Lim) for the accused.