ADRI SATRYAWAN PRATAMA v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

[2024] SGHC 258 High Court (General Division) 10 October 2024 HC/MA 9085/2023/01 9 min read
4 cases cited Cited by 1 case

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

I therefore dismiss the appeal against sentence.

Source: [2024] SGHC 258, High Court (General Division), decided 10 October 2024. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court High Court (General Division)
Decided
Judge Vincent Hoong
Charges / claim Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
Outcome Appeal dismissed
Counsel Attorney-General's Chambers, Niroze Idroos LLC, Gabriel Lee, Mohamed Niroze Idroos, Sunil Nair

Source: [2024] SGHC 258, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (1)

Counsel (5)

Parties (2)

Case Significance

In Adri Satryawan Pratama v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 258, the General Division of the High Court heard Magistrate's Appeal No 9085 of 2023, an appeal against sentence. The appellant, Adri Satryawan Pratama, had pleaded guilty to a single charge of careless driving causing grievous hurt, an offence under s 65(1)(a) punishable under s 65(3)(a) read with s 65(6)(d) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed). A second charge of careless driving causing hurt, an offence under s 65(1)(a) punishable under s 65(4)(a), was taken into consideration for sentencing with his consent. The District Judge had sentenced him to six weeks' imprisonment, disqualified him from holding or obtaining all classes of driving licences for five years and prohibited him from driving any motor vehicle in Singapore for five years, as recorded in Public Prosecutor v Adri Satryawan Pratama [2023] SGDC 102.

In the appeal against sentence, the appellant submitted that the imprisonment term should be substituted with a fine of $4,000, while not challenging the disqualification and prohibition orders. Vincent Hoong J delivered an ex tempore judgment on 10 October 2024, noting as a preliminary matter that the appellant had been sentenced according to the framework in Sue Chang v Public Prosecutor [2022] SGHC 176, the prevailing framework at the time, before a three-judge panel of the High Court addressed the position in Chen Song v Public Prosecutor and other appeals [2024]. The Attorney-General's Chambers, with Gabriel Lee and Sunil Nair, appeared for the respondent, and Niroze Idroos LLC, with Mohamed Niroze Idroos, for the appellant.

[2024] SGHC 258 explained

ADRI SATRYAWAN PRATAMA v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2024] SGHC 258) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 10 October 2024. It is categorised under Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure and Sentencing. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 1 other reported Singapore judgment, 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 258 about?

ADRI SATRYAWAN PRATAMA v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2024] SGHC 258) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Law — Road Traffic Act – Careless driving” and “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Appeals”, 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 258 consider?

The judgment refers to Road Traffic Act (Cap 276). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2024] SGHC 258 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2024] SGHC 129. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

How influential is [2024] SGHC 258?

Within this corpus, [2024] SGHC 258 has been cited by 1 later reported Singapore judgment. 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

In this appeal to the General Division of the High Court, the appellant had pleaded guilty to one charge of careless driving causing grievous hurt under the Road Traffic Act, with a second charge of careless driving causing hurt taken into consideration, and the District Judge had sentenced him to six weeks' imprisonment together with disqualification and prohibition orders of five years. The appellant appealed against sentence, seeking that the imprisonment term be substituted with a fine of $4,000, and a preliminary issue arose as to whether the older Sue Chang framework or the newer Chen Song framework applied. The court held that the six-week imprisonment term was not manifestly excessive or otherwise wrong, declined to disturb the disqualification and prohibition orders, and dismissed the appeal against sentence.

What sentence was appealed in Adri Satryawan Pratama v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 258?

The District Judge had sentenced Adri Satryawan Pratama to six weeks' imprisonment, a five-year disqualification from all classes of driving licences, and a five-year prohibition from driving any motor vehicle in Singapore for careless driving causing grievous hurt under s 65(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act.

What did the appellant seek in the appeal in [2024] SGHC 258?

The appellant submitted that the six weeks' imprisonment term should be substituted with a fine of $4,000, while not challenging the disqualification and prohibition orders. Vincent Hoong J delivered an ex tempore judgment on 10 October 2024, noting the relevance of the sentencing frameworks in Sue Chang and Chen Song.

Statutes Cited

Cases Cited (4)

SG (3)
[2022] SGHC 176 [2023] SGDC 102 [2024] SGHC 129
SLR (1)
[2018] 2 SLR 557

Cited By (1)

Related cases

Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.

Referenced in

Statutes interpreted in this judgment

Sentencing outcomes for this offence

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2024] SGHC 258)