PP v Lim Choon Teck: Rash Cycling, Personal Safety, and Manifestly Excessive Sentence
The Public Prosecutor appealed against the sentence imposed on Lim Choon Teck for a charge under section 336(a) of the Penal Code for rash cycling. The High Court, presided over by Chan Seng Onn J, heard the appeal on 18 September 2015 and reduced the respondent’s sentence from eight weeks’ imprisonment to three weeks’ imprisonment, finding the initial sentence manifestly excessive. The court considered factors such as the degree of rashness, the injury suffered by the victim, and the respondent’s early plea of guilt.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Public Prosecutor appealed against the sentence imposed on Lim Choon Teck for rash cycling, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The High Court reduced the sentence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Appellant | Government Agency | Appeal Allowed | Won | Tan Ee Kuan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Prem Raj Prabakaran of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lim Choon Teck | Respondent | Individual | Sentence Reduced | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Seng Onn | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tan Ee Kuan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Prem Raj Prabakaran | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The respondent collided with a 69-year-old woman while cycling on a pavement at an unsafe speed.
- The collision caused the victim to suffer fractures to her right upper arm and wrist.
- The respondent initially provided his identification card but then took it back and left the scene.
- The respondent was charged under s 336(a) of the Penal Code for committing a rash act endangering personal safety.
- The respondent pleaded guilty to the reduced charge.
- The District Judge sentenced the respondent to eight weeks’ imprisonment.
- The Public Prosecutor appealed against the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Lim Choon Teck, , [2015] SGHC 265
- Public Prosecutor v Lim Choon Teck, 9149 of 2015, Magistrate's Appeal No 9149 of 2015
- Public Prosecutor v Lim Choon Teck, , [2015] SGMC 30
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Collision occurred between the respondent's bicycle and the victim | |
| Respondent arrested | |
| Respondent sentenced to eight weeks’ imprisonment | |
| District Judge released grounds of decision | |
| Appeal heard | |
| High Court reduced the respondent’s sentence to three weeks’ imprisonment |
7. Legal Issues
- Manifestly Excessive Sentence
- Outcome: The High Court found the initial sentence of eight weeks' imprisonment to be manifestly excessive and reduced it to three weeks' imprisonment.
- Category: Procedural
- Rash Act Endangering Personal Safety
- Outcome: The respondent was found guilty of committing a rash act endangering personal safety under s 336(a) of the Penal Code.
- Category: Substantive
- General Deterrence in Sentencing
- Outcome: The court emphasized the need for general deterrence in cases of rash cycling on pavements that endangers human life or personal safety.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2007] 2 SLR(R) 814
8. Remedies Sought
- Review of Sentence
- Reduction of Sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Rash Act Endangering Personal Safety
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Traffic Violations
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Law Aik Meng | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 814 | Singapore | Cited for identifying situations where the sentencing principle of general deterrence is engaged. |
| Public Prosecutor v Hue An Li | High Court | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 661 | Singapore | Cited for the legal definition of rashness and the application of the outcome materiality principle in criminal negligence. |
| Balchandra Waman Pathe v The State of Maharashtra | Indian Supreme Court | Yes | (1967) 71 Bombay LR 684 (SC) | India | Cited for the definition of culpable rashness. |
| Public Prosecutor v Teo Poh Leng | High Court | Yes | [1991] 2 SLR(R) 541 | Singapore | Cited for accepting the definition of rashness from Balchandra Waman Pathe v The State of Maharashtra. |
| Public Prosecutor v Poh Teck Huat | High Court | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR(R) 299 | Singapore | Cited for accepting the definition of rashness from Balchandra Waman Pathe v The State of Maharashtra. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Fook Sum | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 1022 | Singapore | Cited for the circumstances in which specific deterrence becomes a relevant consideration in sentencing. |
| Mehra Radhika v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 96 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the law generally imposes a more severe punishment on an offender who has planned the commission of the offence with great deliberation than one who has committed the offence on a spur of the moment. |
| Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 653 | Singapore | Cited for the situation that calls for specific deterrence, which is where the offender displays a propensity to reoffend. |
| Ng So Kuen Connie v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 178 | Singapore | Cited for the strong element of general deterrence that underpins “killer litter” offences has also resulted in a custodial sentence as the norm for a successful conviction under the “rash” limb of s 336 of the Penal Code. |
| Public Prosecutor v Cheong Hock Lai | High Court | Yes | [2004] 3 SLR(R) 203 | Singapore | Cited for the point that a deterrent sentence may take the form of a custodial sentence or “a fine if it is high enough to have a deterrent effect”. |
| Tan Kay Beng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 10 | Singapore | Cited for the point that a timeously-effected plea of guilt may merit a sentencing discount of between a quarter to a third of what would otherwise be an appropriate sentence although this is by no means an entitlement nor a hard and fast rule. |
| Goldring, Timothy Nicholas v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 158 | Singapore | Cited for the point that the lack of restitution is a relevant sentencing consideration (normally acting as an aggravating factor and especially when the perpetrator has ample means to make restitution), inter alia, when the offence results in the enrichment of the perpetrator. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lee Meow Sim Jenny | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR(R) 369 | Singapore | Cited for the point that compensation does not form part of the punishment imposed on the offender. |
| ADF v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 874 | Singapore | Cited for the point that compensation does not form part of the punishment imposed on the offender. |
| Soh Meiyun v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 299 | Singapore | Cited for the point that compensation does not form part of the punishment imposed on the offender. |
| Public Prosecutor v AOB | High Court | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 793 | Singapore | Cited for the point that the powers of the court under s 359(1) of the CPC are meant to merely effect a shortcut for a certain class of victims (primarily impecunious victims) to obtain a civil remedy from those offenders who clearly have the means to pay the compensation as it may be impractical to expect these victims to commence a civil suit. |
| Goik Soon Guan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 655 | Singapore | Cited for the point that the sentence imposed must, at the end of the day, be fair to the accused, bearing in mind all the relevant mitigating factors. |
| Public Prosecutor v Nandprasad Shiwsaakar | District Court | Yes | [2014] SGDC 391 | Singapore | Cited for comparison of the degree of rashness of the offender within the spectrum of rashness in relation to an offence under s 304A(a) of the Penal Code with the respondent’s degree of rashness within the spectrum of rashness in relation to s 336 of the Penal Code. |
| Public Prosecutor v Palaniappan s/o Palaniappan | District Court | Yes | [2006] SGDC 284 | Singapore | Cited for the case where the accused displayed an extremely high degree of rashness by proceeding straight into the junction when the traffic light signal had clearly turned against him and caused the death of an oncoming motorist, the accused’s sentence of six months’ imprisonment was reduced to three months’ imprisonment (or about 13 weeks’ imprisonment) on appeal. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yap Wei Wun Raymond | Magistrate's Court | Yes | [2009] SGMC 12 | Singapore | Cited for comparison with the present case in the sentencing spectrum for s 336(a) of the Penal Code. |
| Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 49 | Singapore | Cited for the point that the Attorney-General is the custodian of the prosecutorial power. |
| R v Kenneth John Ball | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | (1951) 35 Cr App R 164 | England and Wales | Cited for the observations of Hilbery J on the public interest in the realm of criminal law and the administration of criminal justice. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Highway Code (Cap 276, R 11, 1990 Rev Ed) r 29 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 336(a) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 320(g) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 338(a) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 304A | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Rules (Cap 276, R20, 1999 Rev Ed) r 28(1) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 84(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 359(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Rash Cycling
- Manifestly Excessive Sentence
- General Deterrence
- Personal Safety
- Pavement
- Unsafe Speed
- Custodial Sentence
- Outcome Materiality Principle
- Control Principle
15.2 Keywords
- Rash Cycling
- Sentencing
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
- High Court
- Appeal
- Traffic Offence
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Sentencing | 85 |
| Road Traffic Act | 80 |
| Rash Act | 75 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Negligence | 65 |
| Personal Injury | 60 |
| Automobile Accidents | 50 |
| Civil Procedure | 30 |
| Administrative Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing Principles
- Traffic Offences