[2026] SGDC 347

IN THE STATE COURTS OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE

[2026] SGDC 347

Traffic Notice No. 259017806011-1 and others

Public Prosecutor

Against

Low Yun Long, Larry

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

Criminal Law — Offences — Section 64(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (2020 Rev Ed) — Offender ran a red light outside a primary school during school dismissal hours

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Section 64(1) punishable under s 64(2B)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (2020 Rev Ed) — Offender ran a red light outside a primary school during school dismissal hours

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

SENTENCING APPROACH 4

BEFORE THE 2019 AMENDMENTS 4

AFTER THE 2019 AMENDMENTS 6

A FINE OF $5,000 IS APPROPRIATE 10

A DQAC OF 13 MONTHS IS APPROPRIATE 13

CONCLUSION 15

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

Low Yun Long, Larry

[2026] SGDC 347

Traffic Notice No. 259017806011-1 and others

District Judge Samuel Wee

15 October 2026

District Judge Samuel Wee:

Introduction

1 During school dismissal hours, an 11-year-old student (“Victim”) was

pushing his bicycle across a pedestrian crossing (“Crossing”) in front of his primary school (“School”) on a green man signal, when Mr Low Yun Long, Larry (“Mr Low”) ran a red light at the Crossing, causing an accident (“Accident”).

2 The relevant facts of the Accident on 24 March 2025 are as follows:

Public Prosecutor v Low Yun Long, Larry [2026] SGDC 347

(a) Mr Low picked up his son (who attended the School) in his car and drove towards the Crossing, at which the traffic light had turned red for vehicles and the pedestrian signal was green.1

(b) Mr Low failed to notice the red light and drove past the Crossing at a low speed2 into the path of the Victim, which resulted in the Victim’s bicycle colliding into the rear left of Mr Low’s car and the bicycle’s handlebar hitting the Victim’s stomach.3

(c) After the collision, Mr Low stopped his car momentarily without alighting to check on the Victim, opting instead to drive his car a short distance forward to stop at a location that would not obstruct traffic at the Crossing.4

(d) A teacher from the School who was on traffic duty at the Crossing ran after Mr Low’s car. Upon catching up with Mr Low, the teacher informed him that he was careless and there could be no compromise on the safety of students and pedestrians. Mr Low claimed that he had been distracted by his son at the time, and asked if there had been any casualties. The teacher informed Mr Low that he might have collided into the Victim, to which Mr Low asked if the Victim was okay. The teacher then walked back towards the Crossing, expecting Mr Low to follow. Instead, Mr Low returned to his car and drove away.5

1 SOF_[7]; MP_[1], [6].

2 MP_[7].

3 SOF_[6]-[9]; MP_[1], [8].

4 SOF_[10]; MP_[9].

5 SOF_[10]-[11].

Public Prosecutor v Low Yun Long, Larry [2026] SGDC 347

(e) The Victim was conveyed to the Emergency Department at

Sengkang General Hospital, where he was diagnosed with abdominal pain, prescribed a week’s course of Paracetamol and given 2 days’ medical leave.6

3 Mr Low has pleaded guilty to one charge under s 64(1) punishable under

s 64(2B)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (2020 Rev Ed) (version in force on 24 March 2025) (“RTA”) for driving in a manner which was dangerous to the public by failing to conform to the red traffic light signal at the Crossing, which resulted in hurt being caused to the Victim (“Dangerous Driving Charge”).

4 He also admitted and consented to three additional charges being taken

into consideration for the purposes of sentencing (“TIC Charges”):

(a) One charge under s 84(1)(a) read with s 84(7), punishable under s 131(2)(a) of the RTA, for failing to stop his motorcar and provide his particulars after the Accident.

(b) One charge under s 84(2) read with s 84(7), punishable under s 131(2)(a) of the RTA, for failing to report the Accident at a police station or to a police officer as soon as reasonably practicable within 24 hours after the Accident.

(c) One charge under s 84(3) read with s 84(7), punishable under s 131(2)(a) of the RTA, for failing to render such assistance as was reasonably in his power to render after the Accident caused injury to the Victim.

6 SOF_[12]; SOF_Exhibit P1.

Public Prosecutor v Low Yun Long, Larry [2026] SGDC 347

5 The Prosecution seeks a fine of $10,000 and an order disqualifying Mr

Low from holding or obtaining driving licences of any class (“DQAC”) for 48 months.7 The Defence submits that a fine of $3,000 and a DQAC for 12 months would be a just and appropriate sentence.8

6 Mr Low is sentenced to a fine of $5,000 (in default 2 weeks’

imprisonment) and 13 months’ DQAC from 15 October 2026 (ie. the date of conviction).

Sentencing approach

7 The Dangerous Driving Charge carries a maximum fine of $10,000, a

maximum of 2 years’ imprisonment, or both (s 64(2B)(a) of the RTA). Under s 42(1)(a) of the RTA, the court may also order a DQAC against Mr Low for life or for any period that the court thinks fit.

8 In determining the sentencing approach to adopt for the Dangerous

Driving Charge, it is helpful to understand the changes to s 64 of the RTA arising from amendments that came into force on 1 November 2019 (“2019 Amendments”).

Before the 2019 Amendments

9 Prior to the 2019 Amendments, s 64 of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276,

2004 Rev Ed) (“Pre-2019 Amendment RTA”) covered the offence of reckless or dangerous driving regardless of the nature of resulting hurt. Section 64 of the Pre-2019 Amendment RTA stated:

Reckless or dangerous driving

7 AOS_[1].

8 MP_[3].

Public Prosecutor v Low Yun Long, Larry [2026] SGDC 347

64.—(1) If any person drives a motor vehicle on a road recklessly, or at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the nature, condition and use of the road, and the amount of traffic which is actually at the time, or which might reasonably be expected to be, on the road, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both.

(2) On a second or subsequent conviction under this section, the convicting court shall exercise the power conferred by section 42 of ordering that the offender shall be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence unless the court, having regard to the lapse of time since the date of the previous or last previous conviction or for any other special reason, thinks fit to order otherwise.

(3) Subsection (2) shall not be construed as affecting the right of the court to exercise the power under section 42 on a first conviction.

(4) Where a person is convicted of abetting the commission of an offence under this section and it is proved that he was present in the motor vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence, the offence of which he is convicted shall, for the purpose of the provisions of Part II relating to disqualification from holding or obtaining driving licences, be deemed to be an offence in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle.

(5) Any police officer may arrest without warrant any person committing an offence under this section.

10 The calibration of a sentence for an offence under s 64(1) of the Pre-

2019 Amendment RTA required the identification of both offence-specific factors and offender-specific factors, with the High Court in Public Prosecutor v Koh Thiam Huat [2017] 4 SLR 1099 (“Koh Thiam Huat”) identifying the following relevant offence-specific factors:9

9 Koh Thiam Huat_[41].

Public Prosecutor v Low Yun Long, Larry [2026] SGDC 347

	Harm		Culpability
(a) (b)	The extent of injury damage caused. The potential harm might have resulted.	or that	(a) Whether a particularly dangerous manner of driving was involved. (b) Whether the dangerous driving was deliberate.

After the 2019 Amendments

11 Following the 2019 Amendments, different punishment provisions applied to different tiers of hurt (“Hurt Tier”).

(a) Section 64(2) of the RTA covered offences causing death.

(b) Section 64(2A) of the RTA covered offences causing grievous hurt.

(d) Section 64(2C) of the RTA covered offences in respect of any other case (encompassing those where no hurt is caused).

12 Within each Hurt Tier, different punishment provisions also applied to different offender profiles (“Offender Profile”):

(a) First-time offenders.

(b) Repeat offenders (as defined under s 64(3) of the RTA).

(d) Serious repeat offenders (as defined under s 64(8) of the RTA).

13 As detailed by the General Division of the High Court in Wu Zhi Yong v Public Prosecutor [2022] 4 SLR 587 (“Wu Zhi Yong”) at [12]-[15], the 2019

Public Prosecutor v Low Yun Long, Larry [2026] SGDC 347

Amendments were “aimed to provide stronger deterrence against irresponsible driving” and “envisaged a new scheme of penalties for reckless or dangerous driving in a tiered structure calibrated according to the degree of hurt caused”.

14 There is no unified sentencing approach for s 64 of the RTA. Different

sentencing frameworks have presently been established for some Hurt Tiers and Offender Profiles, such as:

(a) The framework in Wu Zhi Yong, which applies to an offence under s 64(1) punishable under s 64(2C)(a), read with s 64(2C)(c) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) (version in force on 11 February 2020) for reckless or dangerous driving (where no hurt is caused) by serious offenders while under the influence of alcohol.

(b) The framework in Ng En You Jeremiah (alias Huang Enyou) v Public Prosecutor [2025] 4 SLR 395 (“Jeremiah Ng”), which applies to an offence under s 64(1) punishable under s 64(2)(a), read with ss 64(2)(c) and 64(2D)(b) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) (version in force on 23 December 2021) for reckless or dangerous driving (causing death) by serious offenders while under the influence of alcohol.

15 There is presently no sentencing framework established for the

Dangerous Driving Charge faced by Mr Low under s 64(1) punishable under s 64(2B)(a) of the RTA, and I do not propose establishing one as the setting of sentencing frameworks should be left to the appellate courts (Public Prosecutor v Sindok Trading Pte Ltd (now known as BSS Global Pte Ltd) and other appeals [2022] 5 SLR 336 at [29]).

Public Prosecutor v Low Yun Long, Larry [2026] SGDC 347

16 Instead, I find it helpful to consider the offence-specific factors that can

be gleaned from:

(a) The existing frameworks in Wu Zhi Yong and Jeremiah Ng, in respect of factors relating to harm and culpability that are relevant to the act of reckless or dangerous driving, but excluding factors relating to serious offenders and the consumption of alcohol (eg. the offender’s reason or motivation for driving, which appears to be a factor linked to the offence of drink driving).10

(b) The sentencing framework in Chen Song v Public Prosecutor and other appeals [2025] 3 SLR 509 (“Chen Song”) for an offence under s 65(1)(a) punishable under s 65(4)(a) of the RTA for careless driving (causing hurt) by first-time offenders,11 in respect of factors relating to the hurt involved, taking into account that ss 64 and 65 of the RTA adopt the same Hurt Tiers.

(c) The relevant factors identified by the High Court in Koh Thiam Huat in respect of s 64(1) of the Pre-2019 Amendment RTA.

17 Consequently, a non-exhaustive list of relevant offence-specific factors

for the Dangerous Driving Charge faced by Mr Low under s 64(1) punishable under s 64(2B)(a) of the RTA is as follows:

Harm	Culpability
(a) The actual harm caused, which entails considering:12	(a) The specific manner of driving, which includes considering:15

10 Wu Zhi Yong_[36(d)]; Jeremiah Ng_[79], [83].

11 AOS_[3].

12 Jeremiah Ng_[80(a)]; Chen Song_[124]-[127]. 15 Wu Zhi Yong_[36(e)]; Jeremiah Ng_[79].

Public Prosecutor v Low Yun Long, Larry [2026] SGDC 347

Harm	Culpability
(i) The nature and location	(i) Speeding.
of the injuries.	(ii) Deliberate dangerous
(ii) The degree of	driving.
permanence of the	(b) The offender’s conduct
injuries.	following the offence or
(iii) The impact of the injuries (on quality of life). (b) The potential harm that may have resulted, which includes considering:13 (i) The condition of the road. (ii) The volume of traffic or number of pedestrians actually on or which might reasonably be expected on the road at the relevant time. (iii) The speed and manner of driving. (iv) Visibility. (v) The type of vehicle. (vi) Any particular vulnerabilities. (c) Property damage.14	attempt to evade arrest.16

For clarity, while potential harm has been placed under the first column for “Harm”, the General Division of the High Court has indicated in Chen Song at [128]-[130] that it is a factor that may also go towards culpability (with due caution having to be exercised to avoid double-counting).

18 As for the offender-specific factors, the following non-exhaustive list

applies:17

13 Wu Zhi Yong_[36(a)]; Jeremiah Ng_[79], [83]; Chen Song_[125]-[127].

14 Wu Zhi Yong_[36(b)]; Jeremiah Ng_[79], [83]; Chen Song_[125]-[127].

16 Wu Zhi Yong_[36(f)]; Jeremiah Ng_[79], [83].

17 Wu Zhi Yong_[48]; Jeremiah Ng_[85]; Chen Song_[169].

Public Prosecutor v Low Yun Long, Larry [2026] SGDC 347

Aggravating Factors	Mitigating Factors
(a) TIC charges. (b) Relevant antecedents. (c) An evident lack of remorse.	(a) A guilty plea. (b) Cooperation with the authorities. (c) Evidence of genuine remorse. (d) An offender’s youth.

A fine of $5,000 is appropriate

19 Having considered the offence-specific factors and offender-specific factors, I find that a fine of $5,000 (in default 2 weeks’ imprisonment) is appropriate.

20 The relevant offence-specific factors are as follows:

Harm (Slight)	Culpability (Low)
(a) The Victim was diagnosed	(a) The mode of dangerous
with abdominal pain, prescribed a week’s course of	driving relates to Mr Low running a red light at the
Paracetamol and given 2 days’	Crossing.21
medical leave.18	(b) Mr Low did not alight from his
(b) The potential harm, taking into	car after the Accident to assist
account that the Accident	the Victim or provide his
happened in front of the	particulars, nor did he lodge a
School during school dismissal hours, when other students were also at the	police report.22
Crossing.19 (c) There is no evidence of property damage to the
Victim’s bicycle.20

18 AOS_[4(a)]; MP_[18(a)].

19 SOF_[8]; AOS_[4(b)(i)]; MP_[18(b)].

20 MP_[18(c)].

21 AOS_[4(b)(i)]; MP_[2].

22 AOS_[4(b)(ii)], [4(b)(iii)].

Public Prosecutor v Low Yun Long, Larry [2026] SGDC 347

21 The only applicable offender-specific factor is Mr Low’s indication of

his intention to plead guilty at Stage 1 of the Sentencing Advisory Panel’s Guidelines on Reduction in Sentences for Guilty Pleas. For clarity, I placed no weight on the TIC charges as the conduct in question has already been considered as part of Mr Low’s conduct following the offence (see [20(b)] above).

22 The sentence of a fine of $5,000 is consistent with the following cases

cited by Mr Low:

(a) Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Selim bin M H Arkatti [2023]

SLR(StC) 127 (“Mohamed Selim”),23 where the offender was sentenced to a fine of $5,000 (in default 15 days’ imprisonment) and 18 months’ DQAC for an offence under s 64(1) punishable under s 64(2B)(b) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) (version in force on 8 September 2021) for dangerous driving (causing hurt) for repeat offenders.

(i) The offender had run a red light while travelling in his car and collided into a pedestrian jogging across the pedestrian crossing on a green man signal.24

(ii) In deriving the sentence, the District Court took into account the following offence-specific factors:

(A) The victim sustained mild tenderness over the left

shoulder and left knee, plus a left parietal scalp

23 MP_[24]-[25].

24 Mohamed Selim_[9]-[10], [37]-[39].

Public Prosecutor v Low Yun Long, Larry [2026] SGDC 347

laceration, was hospitalised for 1 day and given a further 3 days’ hospitalisation leave.25

(B) There was potential harm to three other pedestrians who were in close proximity to the accident.26

(D) The offender stopped his car and rendered immediate assistance to the victim.28

(iii) While I appreciate that the offender in Mohamed Selim

was a repeat offender and the actual harm caused to the victim in Mohamed Selim appears more severe, the potential harm in Mr Low’s case and Mr Low’s conduct following the offence are more egregious.

(b) Public Prosecutor v Chen Baole Emanuel [2024] SGDC 18

(“Emanuel Chen”),29 where the offender was sentenced to a fine of $4,000 (in default 10 days’ imprisonment) and 15 months’ DQAC for an offence under s 64(1) punishable under s 64(2B)(a) of the RTA for dangerous driving (causing hurt) for first-time offenders.

(i) The offender had run a red light while travelling at a high speed on his motorcycle and collided into a motorcyclist who

25 Mohamed Selim_[41].

26 Mohamed Selim_[42].

27 Mohamed Selim_[40].

28 Mohamed Selim_[45].

29 MP_[20]-[23].

Public Prosecutor v Low Yun Long, Larry [2026] SGDC 347

was turning right at the junction (with the traffic light green in the motorcyclist’s favour).30

(ii) In deriving the sentence, the District Court took into

account the following offence-specific factors:

(A) The victim suffered abrasions on both arms and legs, was given 7 days’ medical leave followed by 11 days’ hospitalisation leave.31

(B) The front portion of the victim's motorcycle was damaged.32

(iii) While I appreciate that the actual harm caused to the

victim in Emanuel Chen appears more severe and that the offender had been speeding, the potential harm in Mr Low’s case and Mr Low’s conduct following the offence are more egregious.

A DQAC of 13 months is appropriate

23 In Kwan Weiguang v Public Prosecutor [2022] 5 SLR 766 (“Kwan

Weiguang”), the General Division of the High Court set out some guiding principles when determining the appropriate disqualification order for an offence under s 64(1) punishable under s 64(2C)(a) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) for first-time offenders:

30 Emanuel Chen_[6].

31 Emanuel Chen_[9], [32].

32 Emanuel Chen_[10], [32].

33 Emanuel Chen_[31].

Public Prosecutor v Low Yun Long, Larry [2026] SGDC 347

(a) A disqualification order combines three sentencing objectives: punishment, protection of the public and deterrence.34

(b) The following are relevant when calibrating the period of the disqualification order:

(i) The circumstances of the commission of the offence (eg. the level of risk and danger caused to road users).35

(ii) The competence of the offender on the road and his attitude towards other road users (eg. whether a road rage situation was involved).36

(iii) There is no necessary link between the period of disqualification and the fine and/or imprisonment sentence imposed.37

(iv) The 12-month threshold that requires an offender to retake his driving test is not relevant.38

(v) The impact of the disqualification on the offender’s livelihood should be given little weight, unless there are exceptional circumstances.39

34 Kwan Weiguang_[59].

35 Kwan Weiguang_[65]-[67].

36 Kwan Weiguang_[68]-[71].

37 Kwan Weiguang_[72]-[74].

38 Kwan Weiguang_[75]-[83].

39 Kwan Weiguang_[84]-[87].

Public Prosecutor v Low Yun Long, Larry [2026] SGDC 347

While Mr Low’s offence under s 64(1) is punishable under s 64(2B)(a) (instead of s 64(2C)(a)) of the RTA, I do not see any reason why the principles set out in Kwan Weiguang should not apply.40

24 A DQAC of 13 months is appropriate in Mr Low’s case in light of the

offence-specific factors set out at [20] above, which go towards showing the circumstances of the commission of the offence (including the actual harm caused and potential harm) and Mr Low’s attitude towards other road users.

Conclusion

25 Mr Low is sentenced to a fine of $5,000 (in default 2 weeks’

imprisonment) and 13 months’ DQAC from 15 October 2026 (ie. the date of conviction).

Samuel Wee
District Judge

Kelly Ng (Attorney-General’s Chambers) for the Public Prosecutor; Yeo Kee Teng, Mark and Lee Wan Lin Amelia (Fortress Law Corporation) for the Accused.

40 MP_[30]