Rangasamy Subramaniam v PP: Drink Driving Offence Analysis under Road Traffic Act
Rangasamy Subramaniam appealed to the High Court of Singapore against his conviction for drink driving under section 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act. He was initially fined and disqualified from driving. Lee Seiu Kin J allowed the appeal, quashing the conviction, holding that section 71A(1) of the Road Traffic Act is not applicable when the appellant was apprehended while he was in charge of a vehicle. The court will hear counsel on whether to convict the appellant under section 68(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Conviction under section 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act quashed; court to hear counsel on whether to convict under section 68(1)(b).
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against drink driving conviction. The court examined the applicability of s 71A of the Road Traffic Act when a driver is apprehended.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Partial Loss | Partial | Gillian Koh Tan of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Rangasamy Subramaniam | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed in Part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Gillian Koh Tan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| S K Kumar | S K Kumar & Associates |
4. Facts
- Appellant drank a bottle of beer at a coffee shop and finished by 11pm on December 2, 2007.
- Appellant drove his car along the Pan-Island Expressway (PIE) at about 2am on December 3, 2007.
- Appellant felt sleepy and nauseated, stopping his car at the road shoulder on the PIE.
- Police found the appellant inside his car at the road shoulder of the PIE at 3.54am on December 3, 2007.
- Appellant's speech was slurred and his eyes were bloodshot when found by the police.
- Breathalyser test at 4.42am showed the appellant had alcohol in his breath.
- Breath evidential analyser test at 5.42am showed 43 microgrammes of alcohol per 100ml of breath.
5. Formal Citations
- Rangasamy Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor, MA 312/2008, [2009] SGHC 255
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant went to a coffee shop at Tanjong Pagar at about 10pm. | |
| Appellant finished drinking a bottle of beer by 11pm. | |
| Appellant left the coffee shop at about 2am and started to drive home. | |
| Appellant stopped his car at the road shoulder on the Pan-Island Expressway (PIE). | |
| Police received a telephone call at 3.54am regarding a car parked on the PIE. | |
| Police found the appellant inside his car at the road shoulder of the PIE at 3.54am. | |
| Breathalyser test was administered on the appellant at 4.42am. | |
| Appellant was arrested after failing the breathalyser test. | |
| Breath evidential analyser test was administered on the appellant at 5.42am. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Drink Driving
- Outcome: The court held that s 71A(1) RTA is not applicable in the present case where the appellant was apprehended while he was in charge of a vehicle.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Exceeding prescribed alcohol limit
- Driving under influence
- Related Cases:
- [1988] Crim L R 758
- [1989] Crim L R 382
- [1990] Crim. LR 601
- [1995] 3 SLR 701
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction and sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Drink Driving
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Traffic Violations
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beauchamp-Thompson v DPP | Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench | Yes | [1988] Crim L R 758 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the assumption in s 71A(1) RTA is not rebuttable unless it falls under s 71A(2). |
| DPP v Williams | Queen’s Bench Divisional Court | Yes | [1989] Crim L R 382 | England and Wales | The court distinguished this case, stating that it did not provide any guidance on the issue before the court. |
| Millard v DPP | Divisional Court | Yes | [1990] Crim. LR 601 | England and Wales | The court distinguished this case, stating that it did not provide any guidance on the issue before the court. |
| Garmaz s/o Pakha v PP | N/A | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR 701 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that under s 256(b)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court has the power to convict the appellant on an amended charge. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 67(1)(b) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 68(1)(b) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 68(2) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 69(1) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 69(5) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 70(1) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 70(4) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 71A(1) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 71A(2) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 256(b)(ii) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Drink driving
- Road Traffic Act
- Breathalyser test
- Breath evidential analyser
- Prescribed limit
- Section 71A
- Section 67(1)(b)
- Section 68(1)(b)
- In charge of a vehicle
- Driving under influence
15.2 Keywords
- Drink driving
- Road Traffic Act
- Section 71A
- Driving under influence
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Road Traffic Act | 95 |
| Drink Driving | 90 |
| Criminal Law | 60 |
| Criminal Procedure | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Road Traffic
- Statutory Interpretation