Public Prosecutor v Lee Meng Soon: Drink Driving & Failure to Render Assistance Sentencing

In Public Prosecutor v Lee Meng Soon, the Public Prosecutor appealed to the High Court of Singapore against the sentences imposed by the district judge on Lee Meng Soon for offences under the Road Traffic Act, including drink driving, driving without reasonable consideration, failing to render assistance after an accident, and removing a vehicle without authority. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, increasing the sentence for the drink driving charge to two weeks' imprisonment and a three-year disqualification, to run consecutively with the four-week sentence for failing to render assistance. The court dismissed the appeal against the sentence for failing to render assistance.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed in part. The High Court increased the sentence for drink driving to two weeks' imprisonment and a three-year disqualification, to run consecutively with the four-week sentence for failing to render assistance.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Lee Meng Soon was sentenced for drink driving and failing to render assistance after an accident. The Public Prosecutor appealed, arguing the sentences were inadequate.

1.7 Decision Date

13 August 2007

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Appellant	Government Agency	Appeal allowed in part	Partial	Lau Wing Yum of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jason Chan of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Lee Meng Soon	Respondent	Individual	Sentence increased for drink driving	Lost	Lok Vi Ming SC of Rodyk & Davidson LLP Derek Kang of Rodyk & Davidson LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Lee Seiu Kin	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Lau Wing Yum	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Jason Chan	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Lok Vi Ming SC	Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Derek Kang	Rodyk & Davidson LLP

4. Facts

Lee Meng Soon drove with 77 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath, exceeding the 35 microgrammes limit.
Lee Meng Soon's car collided with a motorcycle at a signalized cross-junction.
The collision caused the motorcycle rider to lose control, resulting in injuries to both the rider and pillion.
The pillion rider sustained serious injuries, including fractures and a near-amputation of a toe.
Lee Meng Soon drove off from the accident location without rendering assistance.
Lee Meng Soon was apprehended at a traffic junction and failed a breathalyzer test.

5. Formal Citations

Public Prosecutor v Lee Meng Soon, MA 91/2007, [2007] SGHC 129

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2006-10-08	Accident occurred
2007-05-10	Disqualification from driving began
2007-05-22	Parliamentary debate on drink driving
2007-08-14	Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

Sentencing Principles
- Outcome: The appellate court has a limited scope for intervention with respect to sentences meted out by a lower court.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Judicial discretion
  - Regard to previous sentencing precedents
  - Unique facts and circumstances of each case
- Related Cases:
  - [2006] 4 SLR 653
  - [1986] SLR 126
  - [2004] 3 SLR 203
  - [2003] 3 SLR 435
  - [2002] 1 SLR 301
  - [2001] 2 SLR 253
Drink Driving Sentencing
- Outcome: A sentence of imprisonment could be justified where a first offender of an offence under s 67(1) has a high level of alcohol combined with poor control of his vehicle.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Level of alcohol in breath
  - Degree of control of vehicle
- Related Cases:
  - [1992] 1 SLR 731
Failure to Render Assistance Sentencing
- Outcome: Hit and run offences must be severely dealt with as it constitutes a reprehensible abdication of the fundamental moral obligation to render assistance to the victim.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Whether driver reasonably contemplating extent of damage
  - Degree of injury suffered
  - Degree of alcohol consumption
  - Hit-and-run
  - Whether deterrent sentence stemming hit-and-run cases
- Related Cases:
  - [2006] SGDC 234
  - [2007] SGHC 60

8. Remedies Sought

Review of sentences imposed by the district judge
Imposition of custodial sentence for drink driving
Longer term of imprisonment for failure to render assistance

9. Cause of Actions

Drink driving
Driving without reasonable consideration
Failure to render assistance
Removing a vehicle without authority

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Law
Sentencing
Traffic Violations

11. Industries

Media

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd v PP	High Court	Yes	[2006] 4 SLR 653	Singapore	Cited for the principle that sentencing is largely a matter of judicial discretion.
Tan Koon Swan v PP	Unknown	Yes	[1986] SLR 126	Singapore	Cited for the circumstances where an appellate court retains the prerogative to correct sentences.
PP v Cheong Hock Lai & Other Appeals	Unknown	Yes	[2004] 3 SLR 203	Singapore	Cited for the circumstances where an appellate court retains the prerogative to correct sentences.
Viswanathan Ramachandran v PP	Unknown	Yes	[2003] 3 SLR 435	Singapore	Cited for the principle that due regard may be given to previous sentencing precedents involving similar facts or offences.
Syeed Chowdhury v PP	Unknown	Yes	[2002] 1 SLR 301	Singapore	Cited for the principle that sentencing precedents should not be dogmatically applied without due appreciation of the unique facts and circumstances of each individual case.
Soong Hee Sin v PP	Unknown	Yes	[2001] 2 SLR 253	Singapore	Cited for the principle that sentencing is a matter of law which involves varied and manifold factors.
Dinesh Bhatia Singh s/o Amarjeet Singh v PP	Unknown	Yes	[2005] 3 SLR 1	Singapore	Cited for the principle that benchmarks and/or tariffs had significance, standing and value as judicial tools so as to help achieve a certain degree of consistency and rationality in sentencing practices.
The Queen v Chau Tai	Unknown	Yes	[1999] 1 HKSLR 341	Hong Kong	Cited for the principle that the consequences of an accident may sometimes have little relevance to the penalty that should be imposed.
Ong Beng Soon v PP	High Court	Yes	[1992] 1 SLR 731	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a person substantially over the legal limit is in more flagrant violation of the Road Traffic Act than a person marginally over the limit.
PP v Law Aik Meng	Unknown	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR 814	Singapore	Cited for the principle that specific deterrence is usually appropriate in instances where the crime is premeditated.
Sargeant	Court of Appeal	Yes	60 Cr. App. R 74	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that deterrent sentences are of little value in respect of offences which are committed on the spur of the moment.
PP v Koh Liang Choon	District Court	Yes	[2006] SGDC 234	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a custodial sentence is not warranted in every case of failure to render assistance.
PP v Fernandez Joseph Ferdinent	High Court	Yes	[2007] SGHC 60	Singapore	Cited as a case involving serious injury or death where the range of imprisonment sentences have been for 3 to 6 weeks and a disqualification period of 18 months.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Section 67(1) Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Section 84(3) Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Section 84(4) Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Section 65 Road Traffic Act	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Drink driving
Failure to render assistance
Road Traffic Act
Sentencing principles
Judicial discretion
Deterrent sentence
Hit-and-run
Disqualification
Breathalyzer test
Mitigation plea

15.2 Keywords

Drink driving
Sentencing
Road Traffic Act
Failure to render assistance
Criminal Law
Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Road Traffic Act	95
Drink Driving	90
Hit and Run	85
Sentencing Principles	80
Criminal Procedure	70
Offences	60
Criminal Law	60
Personal Injury	30

16. Subjects

Road Traffic Offences
Sentencing
Criminal Law