CHEN SONG v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Q: Which legislation does [2024] SGHC 129 consider?

The judgment refers to Amendment Act, Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), Interpretation Act (Cap 1), and Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185), among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2024] SGHC 129 High Court (General Division) 14 May 2024 • HC/MA 9263/2021/01|HC/MA 9113/2022/01|HC/MA 9150/2022/01|HC/MA 9204/2022/01|HC/MA 9243/2022/01 • 92 min read

36 cases cited (35 SG, 1 foreign) Cited by 3 cases

Outcome

Appeal allowed

we allow the appeal in MA 9204 and substitute Erh’s sentence of 10 weeks’ imprisonment with a fine of $4,000. We will now hear parties’ submissions on the appeals in MA 9263, MA 9113, MA 9150 and MA 9243 on the matters at [161] above.

Source: [2024] SGHC 129, High Court (General Division), decided 14 May 2024. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	14 May 2024
Judges	Sundaresh Menon, Tay Yong Kwang, Vincent Hoong
Charges / claim	Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
Outcome	Appeal allowed
Sentence / award	$4,000
Counsel	Attorney-General's Chambers, Christopher Chuah Law Chambers LLC, Hoh Law Corporation, I.R.B. Law LLP, Kalidass Law Corporation, Marican & Associates, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, Ashvin Hariharan, Ashwin Ganapathy, Azri Imran Tan, Benedict Chan Wei Qi, Chiam Yunxin, Foo Chuan Ri (Fu Chuanri), Foong Ke Hui, Joshua Chow Shao Wei, Kalidass s/o Murugaiyan, Koh Boon Yang, Lim Wen Yang, Bryan, Lim Woon Yee, Mohd Munir Marican, Noor Mohamed Marican, R. Arvindren, Sruthi Boppana, Tai Wei Shyong, Yong Yi Xiang

Source: [2024] SGHC 129, High Court (General Division), decided 14 May 2024 — eLitigation. Updated 25 June 2026.

Catchwords

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Sentencing framework — Road Traffic Act — Sections 65(3)(a) and 65(4)(a)

Practice Areas

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing

Judges (3)

Sundaresh Menon Coram Tay Yong Kwang Coram Vincent Hoong Delivered

Counsel (25)

Attorney-General's Chambers Firm Christopher Chuah Law Chambers LLC Firm Hoh Law Corporation Firm I.R.B. Law LLP Firm Kalidass Law Corporation Firm Marican & Associates Firm Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Firm Ashvin Hariharan Counsel Appellant Ashwin Ganapathy Counsel Appellant Azri Imran Tan Counsel Appellant Benedict Chan Wei Qi Counsel Respondent Chiam Yunxin Counsel Appellant Foo Chuan Ri (Fu Chuanri) Counsel Appellant Foong Ke Hui Counsel Respondent Joshua Chow Shao Wei Counsel Appellant Kalidass s/o Murugaiyan Counsel Appellant Koh Boon Yang Counsel Appellant Lim Wen Yang, Bryan Counsel Appellant Lim Woon Yee Counsel Respondent Mohd Munir Marican Counsel Appellant Noor Mohamed Marican Counsel Appellant R. Arvindren Counsel Respondent Sruthi Boppana Counsel Respondent Tai Wei Shyong Counsel Respondent Yong Yi Xiang Counsel Young Independent Counsel

Parties (6)

Public Prosecutor Respondent Chen Song Appellant Chua Ting Fong (Cai Tingfeng) Appellant Erh Zhi Huang, Alvan Appellant Lim Eng Ann Appellant Mohd Raman bin Daud Appellant

Case Significance

Chen Song v Public Prosecutor and other appeals [2024] SGHC 129 was decided in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore on 14 May 2024, with the judgment of the court delivered by Vincent Hoong J on behalf of a coram of Sundaresh Menon CJ, Tay Yong Kwang JCA and Vincent Hoong J, after hearings on 18 July and 8 August 2023. The decision determined a group of five Magistrate's Appeals: Nos 9263 of 2021 and 9113, 9150, 9204 and 9243 of 2022, brought by appellants Chen Song, Chua Ting Fong (Cai Tingfeng), Lim Eng Ann, Erh Zhi Huang, Alvan, and Mohd Raman bin Daud against the Public Prosecutor. The catchwords identify the issue as the sentencing framework under the Road Traffic Act, specifically sections 65(3)(a) and 65(4)(a). The court noted that in 2019 Parliament significantly amended the careless driving and dangerous driving provisions of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed), introducing a new scheme of enhanced penalties based on a tiered harm structure further differentiated by the type of offender (first-time, repeat, serious or serious repeat offender) under the Road Traffic Act 1961 (2020 Rev Ed).

[2024] SGHC 129 explained

CHEN SONG v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2024] SGHC 129) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 14 May 2024. It is categorised under Criminal Procedure and Sentencing. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 3 other reported Singapore judgments, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2024] SGHC 129 about?

CHEN SONG v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2024] SGHC 129) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Sentencing framework — Road Traffic Act — Sections 65(3)(a) and 65(4)(a)”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2024] SGHC 129 consider?

The judgment refers to Amendment Act, Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), Interpretation Act (Cap 1), and Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185), among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

How influential is [2024] SGHC 129?

Within this corpus, [2024] SGHC 129 has been cited by 3 later reported Singapore judgments. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.

Summary

SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE

14 May 2024

Case summary

Chen Song v Public Prosecutor and other appeals [2024] SGHC 129

General Division of the High Court / Magistrate’s Appeal Nos 9263 of 2021, 9113, 9150, 9204 and 9243 of 2022

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Outcome: The General Division of the High Court set out the sentencing framework for s 65(1) Road Traffic Act 1961 (“RTA”) offences punishable under s 65(3)(a) and 65(4)(a) RTA.

Pertinent and significant points of the judgment

• Applying the principles of purposive interpretation, the Court found that the form and substance of s 65 of the RTA reflected a categorisation-centric approach to sentencing for careless driving offences and it was therefore clear and unambiguous that “hurt” in s 65(4) is defined as any physical injury to the exclusion of grievous hurt as defined in s 65(3) and death (the “Exclusive Interpretation”): at [60], [62] and [67].

• The prosecutorial discretion under s 65 of the RTA did not extend to the choice of the subsections pertaining to punishment, which confer upon the sentencing courts the discretion to select the appropriate sentence within the applicable range of sentences. Whether the conditional attributes (ie, the type of hurt, the presence of aggravating factors such as specific or repeat offenders) were satisfied was a matter of fact: at [85].

• The modified Tang Ling Lee sentencing framework was the appropriate sentencing framework for offences under s 65(1) punishable under ss 65(3)(a) and 65(4)(a) of the RTA. The sentencing framework consists of three broad sentencing bands reflecting the varying degrees of seriousness of the offence, which is determined on the basis of: (a) the harm suffered by the victim; and (b) the culpability of the offender: at [123].

Background facts

1 This case involved five appeals by appellants who were convicted of careless driving offense punishable under the grievous hurt or hurt provisions in the Road Traffic Act 1961 (2020 Rev Ed) (“RTA”). The appellants in HC/MA 9263/2021 (“MA 9263”), HC/MA 9113/2022 (“MA 9113”), HC/MA 9150/2022 (“MA 9150”) and HC/MA 9243/2022 (“MA 9243”) were each charged with an offence of driving without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration causing hurt under ss 65(1)(a) and 65(1)(b) respectively, punishable under s 65(4)(a) of the RTA. The appellant in HC/MA 9204/2022 (“MA 9204”) was charged with an offence of driving without due care and attention causing grievous hurt under s 65(1)(a) punishable under s 65(3)(a) of the RTA: at [2].

2 In the court below the appellants pleaded guilty to their respective charges and were sentenced as follows:

(a) The appellant in MA 9263 (“Chen”) was sentenced to 3 weeks’ imprisonment and 16 months’ disqualification from holding or obtaining all classes of driving licence (“DQAC”) from the date of his release: at [14].

(b) The appellant in MA 9113 (“Chua”) was sentenced to 4 weeks’ imprisonment and 3 years’ DQAC from the date of his release: at [19].

(c) The appellant in MA 9150 (“Lim”) was sentenced to a fine of $2,000 and 15 months’ DQAC from the date of his release: at [26].

(d) The appellant in MA 9243 (“Raman”) was sentenced to 4 weeks’ imprisonment and 18 months’ DQAC from the date of his release: at [34].

(e) The appellant in MA 9204 (“Erh”) was sentenced to 10 weeks’ imprisonment and 5 years’ DQAC from the date of his release: at [42].

All five appellants appealed against their respective sentences.

Issues before the Court

3 The following issues were before the Court:

a. How should the provisions in s 65 of the RTA be interpreted? In particular:

i. Are the categories of “hurt” and “grievous hurt” in ss 65(4) and 65(3) respectively dichotomous or non-dichotomous?

ii. Is the choice of the level of harm and by extension the choice of the punishment provision a matter of the exercise of prosecutorial discretion?

b. What is the appropriate sentencing framework for ss 65(3)(a) and 65(4)(a) of the RTA?

c. What is the relationship between the period of disqualification under a disqualification order and the fine and/or imprisonment sentence imposed?

d. When is it appropriate for a short detention order (“SDO”) to be imposed for careless driving offences under s 65 of the RTA?

The Court’s decision

Interpretation of the provisions in s 65 of the RTA

4 Before considering the appropriate sentencing framework for offences under ss 65(1) punishable under 65(3)(a) and 65(4)(a) of the RTA, the Court considered it paramount to interpret the scope and definition of “hurt” under s 65(4) of the RTA.

5 The two possible interpretations of “hurt” in s 65(4) of the RTA were: (a) “hurt” defined with reference to s 319 of the Penal Code as “bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person”, which includes grievous hurt but excludes death (the “Penal Code Interpretation”); or (b) “hurt” defined as any physical injury to the exclusion of grievous hurt as defined in s 65(3) and death (the “Exclusive Interpretation”): at [60].

6 Applying the principles of purposive interpretation, the Court found that the form and substance of s 65 of the RTA reflected a categorisation-centric approach to sentencing for careless driving offences and it was therefore clear and unambiguous that the Exclusive Interpretation reflects the ordinary meaning of “hurt” in s 65(4): at [62] and [67].

7 The Exclusive Interpretation advanced the legislative rationale by delineating the categories of “grievous hurt” and “hurt” as exclusive to the other, in order to facilitate the tiered punishment regime in s 65: at [73].

8 The Court held that the prosecutorial discretion under s 65 of the RTA did not extend to the choice of the subsections pertaining to punishment, which confer upon the sentencing courts the discretion to select the appropriate sentence within the applicable range of sentences. Whether the conditional attributes (ie, the type of hurt, the presence of aggravating factors such as specific or repeat offenders) were satisfied was a matter of fact: at [85].

9 The Court held that the construction of the statute informed the scope and ambit of the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in charging vis-à-vis judicial discretion in sentencing: at [90].

The appropriate sentencing frameworks for careless driving offences punishable under ss 65(3)(a) and 65(4)(a) of the RTA

10 The modified Tang Ling Lee sentencing framework was the appropriate sentencing framework for offences under s 65(1) punishable under ss 65(3)(a) and 65(4)(a) of the RTA. The sentencing framework consists of three broad sentencing bands reflecting the varying degrees of seriousness of the offence, which is determined on the basis of: (a) the harm suffered by the victim; and (b) the culpability of the offender: at [123].

11 At the first step, identify the factors going towards harm and culpability: at [134(a)].

12 At the second step, based on the number of offence-specific harm and culpability factors, the Court promulgated a quantitative factors-based approach to determine which indicative sentencing band a particular offence may fall within. To illustrate, “lesser harm” is caused, and the offender’s culpability is deemed as “lower culpability” where at most one harm or culpability factor applies in respect of each category. “Greater harm” would be caused and the offender’s culpability deemed as “higher culpability” where there are 2 or more harm and culpability factors respectively: at [123].

13 Factors relevant to the harm inquiry may be divided into primary and secondary harm factors. The primary factors include the nature and location of the injuries, the degree of permanence of the injuries and the impact of the injuries. The secondary harm factors are those which are not directly related to the physical injury sustained by the victim, but go towards the extend of harm caused, such as potential harm and property damage: at [124] and [125].

14 Factors going towards culpability include any form of dangerous driving behaviour, the flouting of traffic rules, regulations and high degree of carelessness and the role of contributory negligence in calibrating the offender’s blameworthiness: at [131] and [133].

15 At the third step, after determining the indicative sentencing band that the offence falls within, the court should identify an indicative starting point sentence within that range, taking into account: (a) all the primary harm factors and the culpability factors identified; and (b) the secondary harm factors: at [134(c)].

16 At the final step, the court should make adjustments to the starting point to take into account the usual gamut of offender-specific aggravating and mitigating factors: at [134(d)].

17 These are the sentencing ranges for each sentencing band for careless driving offences causing grievous hurt punishable under s 65(3)(a) of the RTA: at [134(b)].

Band	Circumstances	Sentencing range
1	Lesser harm and lower culpability	Fine 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

18 A similar sentencing sentencing framework should be adopted for careless driving offences causing hurt punishable under s 65(4)(a) of the RTA, with the sentencing ranges for each sentencing band calibrated accordingly: at [139].

Band	Circumstances	Sentencing range	Driving disqualification range
1	Lesser harm and lower culpability	Fine	Up to 12 months’
2	Greater harm and lower culpability Or Lesser harm and higher culpability	Fine to 2 months’ imprisonment	12 to 24 months’
3	Greater harm and higher culpability	Fine to 6 months’ imprisonment	24 to 48 months’ (or longer)

19 A fine and/or imprisonment term and disqualification generally are not to be regarded as mutually compensatory. While the different types of punishment are not fungible, there is a direct relationship arises from the overlapping considerations of harm and culpability underlying the determination of the length of imprisonment or quantum of fine, and the length of the disqualification period: at [141].

20 In determining whether a SDO is appropriate in a particular case, two key factors must be considered: (a) the type of offender; and (b) the nature of the offence. The primary sentencing principle animating SDOs is rehabilitation, and where the nature of the offence is so serious based on the level of harm caused and/or the culpability of the offender such that deterrence and retribution comes to the fore, a traditional term of imprisonment would be more appropriate: at [155] and [156].

Erh’s appeal in MA 9204

21 Notwithstanding Erh’s early plea of guilt and his clean driving record, rehabilitation did not outweigh the principles of deterrence and retribution in the present case given the nature of the present offence, in particular, the serious injury suffered by the victim. It was not appropriate to substitute his sentence for a SDO: at [164].

22 The harm caused was at the higher end of low and Erh’s culpability was low. The indicative sentence ought to be a fine based on the framework in Sue Chang (Xu Zheng) v Public Prosecutor [2023] 3 SLR 440: at [167].

23 The sentence of 10 weeks’ imprisonment imposed by the district judge was manifestly excessive. Erh’s appeal was allowed and his sentence of 10 weeks’ imprisonment was substituted with a fine of $4,000: at [169].

This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s grounds of decision. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s grounds of decision.

What was Chen Song v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 129 about?

Decided on 14 May 2024, [2024] SGHC 129 concerned the sentencing framework under sections 65(3)(a) and 65(4)(a) of the Road Traffic Act. It determined five consolidated Magistrate's Appeals addressing the 2019 amendments introducing tiered, offender-differentiated enhanced penalties for careless and dangerous driving.

Who delivered the judgment in Chen Song v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 129?

Vincent Hoong J delivered the judgment of the court in [2024] SGHC 129, sitting with Sundaresh Menon CJ and Tay Yong Kwang JCA. The five Magistrate's Appeals were heard on 18 July and 8 August 2023 and decided on 14 May 2024.

Which appeals were decided in [2024] SGHC 129?

The decision covered Magistrate's Appeals Nos 9263 of 2021 and 9113, 9150, 9204 and 9243 of 2022, brought by Chen Song, Chua Ting Fong, Lim Eng Ann, Erh Zhi Huang, Alvan, and Mohd Raman bin Daud against the Public Prosecutor on Road Traffic Act sentencing.

Statutes Cited

Amendment Act

s 14

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) Cases on this Act →

s 11(1)

Interpretation Act (Cap 1) Cases on this Act →

s 9A

Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) Cases on this Act →

Parliament significantly amended the provisions in relation to the offences of careless driving and dangerous driving in the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276) Cases on this Act →

Penal Code (Cap 224) Cases on this Act →

s 319 s 320 s 320(g) s 321 s 322 s 323 s 325 s 337(b) s 338(b) s 375(1)(b)

Road Traffic Act (Cap 276) Cases on this Act →

Cases Cited (36)

SG (8)

[2020] SGDC 88 [2021] SGDC 277 [2022] SGDC 139 [2022] SGDC 212 [2022] SGDC 251 [2022] SGDC 296 [2022] SGDC 65 [2023] SGHC 354

SLR (27)

[2008] 2 SLR(R) 239 [2012] 2 SLR 49 [2012] 2 SLR 774 [2012] 4 SLR 947 [2013] 4 SLR 1139 [2014] 4 SLR 661 [2016] 3 SLR 1079 [2016] 5 SLR 207 [2017] 1 SLR 173 [2017] 2 SLR 449 [2017] 2 SLR 850 [2017] 4 SLR 1099 [2017] 5 SLR 1141 [2017] 5 SLR 755 [2018] 1 SLR 127 [2018] 3 SLR 1163 [2018] 4 SLR 609 [2018] 4 SLR 813 [2018] 5 SLR 1153 [2018] 5 SLR 388 [2019] 5 SLR 1005 [2019] 5 SLR 526 [2020] 5 SLR 410 [2022] 1 SLR 1240 [2022] 4 SLR 587 [2022] 5 SLR 766 [2023] 3 SLR 440

UK (1)

[1977] AC 195