AGUSTINUS HADI v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (7)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
Agustinus Hadi v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 262 was an ex tempore judgment of Vincent Hoong J in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 16 October 2024 in Magistrate's Appeal No 9065 of 2023/01. The appellant, Mr Agustinus Hadi, had pleaded guilty in the court below to an offence of dangerous driving under s 64(1) punishable under s 64(2C)(a) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed). The District Judge sentenced him to seven months' imprisonment and disqualified him from holding or obtaining all classes of driving licences for 36 months with effect from his date of release, as reported in Public Prosecutor v Agustinus Hadi [2023] SGDC 50. On appeal, the appellant submitted that the sentence was manifestly excessive, focusing on the imprisonment term. As a preliminary issue, Vincent Hoong J declined the Prosecution's invitation to establish a sentencing framework for offences under s 64(2C)(a) of the Road Traffic Act, noting the observation in Kwan Weiguang v Public Prosecutor [2022] 5 SLR 766 that there was a dearth of reported cases following the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act 2019.
[2024] SGHC 262 explained
AGUSTINUS HADI v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2024] SGHC 262) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 16 October 2024. It is categorised under Road Traffic. 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 262 about?
AGUSTINUS HADI v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2024] SGHC 262) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Road Traffic — Offences — Reckless driving”, 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 262 consider?
The judgment refers to Penal Code (Cap 224) and 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 262 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 262?
Within this corpus, [2024] SGHC 262 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
In this appeal to the General Division of the High Court, the appellant had pleaded guilty in the court below to an offence of dangerous driving under the Road Traffic Act and had been sentenced to seven months' imprisonment and a 36-month disqualification, and he appealed contending that the sentence, particularly the imprisonment term, was manifestly excessive. As a preliminary matter, the court declined the Prosecution's invitation to establish a sentencing framework for offences punishable under s 64(2C)(a) of the Act, citing the insufficient body of case law. The court dismissed the appeal against sentence and, having also considered the length of the disqualification order, was satisfied that it was not manifestly excessive.
What sentence was challenged in Agustinus Hadi v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 262?
Mr Agustinus Hadi appealed against a sentence of seven months' imprisonment and 36 months' disqualification from all classes of driving licences, imposed by the District Judge for dangerous driving under s 64(1) punishable under s 64(2C)(a) of the Road Traffic Act.
Did the court set a sentencing framework for the dangerous driving offence?
No. Vincent Hoong J declined the Prosecution's invitation to establish a sentencing framework for offences under s 64(2C)(a) of the Road Traffic Act, citing Kwan Weiguang v Public Prosecutor [2022] 5 SLR 766, which noted a dearth of reported cases after the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act 2019.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (14)
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2024] SGHC 262)